i. 


'inrv^w'^'' 


Division.,,.. >r^  C-^C-^ 
Section,...^  ycP/ 

Mo., 


■'S^n.n; 


THE 


^       ^ 


BETWEEN  THE 


( 


AEV.  DR.   W.  0.  BROWBrZiEE, 


ON  THE  PART  OF  THE  PROTESTANTS, 


AND  THE 


RcT.  Drt.  John  Power,  Thos.  C.   LeTinf, 
and  Felix  Varela, 


ON  THE  PART  OF  THE  ROMAN  CATHOLICS. 


PRINTED  AND  PUBLISHED  BY  BOYLE  &  BENEDICT, 

Sold,  at  the  Pennsylvania  Branch  Tract  Depositorv,  31  N.  Fourth  street;  Office  of  the 
Philadelphian,  9  Library  street;  Office  of  the  Presbyterian,  9  George  street ;  by  G, 
W.  Mentz  &  Son,  53  N.  Third  street;  French  &  Perkins,  Chesnut  street,  opposite 
the  U.  S.  Bank  ;  Lattimer  &  Co,  Fourth,  between  Market  and  Chesnut  streets  ;  Thos. 
Sutton,  211  N.  Third  street ;  Shadrach  Taylor  384  N.  Second  street ;  at  44  Spruce 
street;  and  by  the  Publishers,  N.  W.  corner  of  Coates  and  Second  streets. 

1833. 


' C^    ^    "        /    ^    «^^^( 


\ 


CONTKOIERSY. 


The  origin  and  cause  ivhich  led  to  this  controversy  are  briefly 
explained  in  the  followinfi;  Utter  from  Dr.  Brownlee,  published 
in  the  *•'  Truth  Teller.''  of  Anv  York,  of  the  2d  of  February, 

TO  THE  EDITOR  OF  THE  TRUTH  TELLE. 

Sir: — In  a  series  of  letters  addressed,  by  a  Roman  Catholic 
writer,  to  me  by  name,  in  your  columns,  I  have  been  Jionored 
with  a  succession  of  public  challenges  to  come  out  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  Roman  Catholic  tenets.  And  you  have,  once 
and  again,  in  the  frankest  and  most  candid  manner,  by  a  print- 
ed invitation,  in  your  journal,  offered  me  your  columns  for  a  re- 
ply. And  to-day,  I  have  received  a  verbal  message  from  you, 
by  Mr.  Chambers,  to  the  same  purpose. 

I  have  stated  repeatedly  to  my  friends,  and  also  in  a  letter  to 
a  Roman  Catholic  gentleman  of  my  acquaintance,  and  yours, — 
1  mean  Dr.  B.,  that  I  shall  not  come  out  in  reply  to  any  anony- 
mous writer.  And  you  know  as  well  as  I,  that  no  man  of  honor 
would  do  it. 

I  have  waited  for  several  months  to  see  some  responsible  name 
appear ;  I  have  been  hitherto,  disappointed.  Even  as  late  as 
Saturday,  the  same  writer  equally  reckless  of  truth,  and  decency, 
again  presents  himself  en  masque^  in  your  columns. 

But,  now,  feeling  as  every  Protestant  minister  does,  that  no 
one  should  decline  a  call  given  by  the  Divine  Master,  to  defend 
his  truth,  I  beg  leave  to  make  the  following  propositions,  in  all 
frankness,  and  candor.  Through  you  I  beg  respectfully  to  give 
a  challenge  in  my  turn,  to  any  one  of  the  following  gentlemen, 
Roman  Catholic  Priests,  in  our  city,  to  come  forward,  and  dis- 
cuss, in  a  series  of  Letters,  alternately  with  me,  the  great  lead- 
ing doctrines,  and  practices  which  seperate  the  Protestant 
Churches  from  Rome  : — I  mean  the  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Dubois  ; 
or  the  very  Rev.  Dr.  Power;  or  the  very  Rev.  Dr.  Varela;  or  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Levins;  or  any  other,  whom  they  will  publicly  nomin- 
ate, and  recommend  as  their  substiute. 

I  offer  to  begin  the  discussion,  if  you  please,  any  time  after 
the  first  day  of  March  ensuing;  or,  when  they  shall  name  the 
day  ;  or  1  shall  let  them  commence  the  discussion.  And  it  is  to 
be  understood  that  the  respective  letters  shall  be  printed  in 
your  columns  faithfully  and  precisely,  as  they  have  been  given 
in   by  their  authors  :  and   also  in  the  pages  of  the  Protestant 


<" 


faithfully  and  precisely, ^s  given  into  it, — errors,  of  course  being 
corrected. 

A  reply,  as  early  as  you  can  make  it  convenient,  is  respect- 
fully requested. 

I  am,  Sir,  your  most  obedient 

and  humble  servant, 

W.  C.  Brownlee, 
To  W.  Denman,  Esq.  > 

Editor  of  the  Truth  Teller,       I 

JVew  York,  January,  2Sth,  1833. 


The  following  letter  appeared  in  the  "Truth  Teller,"  in  re- 
ply to  Dr.  Brownlee. 

,^  ACCEPTANCE  OF  THE  CHAI^T^ENGE. 
Mr,  Editor: — We  accept  Dr.  Brownlee's  "  Challenge.''  But, 
to  exclude  all  chance  of  introducing  equivocal  or  irrevelant 
matter,  to  secure  singleness  of  view,  and  unity  of  object,  to  pre- 
vent shift,  subterfuge,  and  cavil,  "  to  avoid  foolish  and  unlearned 
questions,  knowing  that  they  beget  strife,"  2  Tim.  ii.  23.  ; — he 
is  requested  to  state  what  is  his  Rule  of  Faith,  and  who,  or 
what  is  his  Judge  of  Controversies  in  matters  of  faith. 

(Signed)  John  Power,  V.  G.  and  Rector  of  St.  Peter's. 
Thomas  C.  Levins,  Pastor  of  St.   Patrick's 

Cathedral. 
Felix  Varela,  Pastor  of  Christ's  Church. 


Dr.  BIl01¥J\IiEE'!S   LETTER,  N&.  1. 

COMMENCING    THE    DISCUSSION. 

To  the  Editor  of  the   Truth  Teller. 

Sir  : — I  feel  indebted  to  your  politeness  and  courtesy  in 
causing  to  be  inserted  in  your  columns,  my  call  for  a  responsible 
name  :  and,  through  you,  I  tender  my  respects  to  the  learned 
gentlemen  who  have  met  my  invitation. 

I  hope  we  shall  not  be  so  long  in  settling  our  preliminaries,  as 
the  two  gentlemen  were,  who  have  commenced  their  discussion 
in  Philadelphia.  At  any  rate  it  shall  not  be  my  fault,  if  we  are. 
I  hope  Sir,  the  learned  Priests  do  not  mean  to  throv;  a  barrier 
in  the  way,  to  prevent  our  discussion:  although  the  request,  or 
insinuation  put  forth  in  their  "  acceptance"  of  my  "  Challenge," 
does  appear  to  me  to  be  something  which  squints  that  way. 

The  fact  is,  Mr.  Editor, — I  do  not  mean  to  be  stopt  at  the 
very  threshold  of  the  discussion,  by  any  invitation  to  settle  the 
Rule  of  Faith  and  the  Judge  of  controversy.  If  we  must  pause 
here  until  we  agree  on  this  point — then  we  shall  stop  here  for- 
ever.    The  Protestant  and  the  Roman  Catholic  do  not ; — and 


what  is  more,  they  cannot  ever  agree  on  this  point  :  this  creates 
the  abyss  which  lies  between  them :  it*  they  could  agree  on  this 
point,  they  would  no  longer  stand  in  the  relation  of  Protestant 
and  Catholic. 

The  only  Rule  of  faith,  and  final  Judge  of  controversy y  with, 
every  Protestant,  is  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  to  us  in  the 
WRITTEN  WORD  OF  GoD,  THE  HoLY  ScRiPTUREs  J  Containing  alt 
the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  all  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament.  In  these  God  spoke  to  the  Church  in  Hebrew  and 
in  Greek  :  if  there  be  any  thing  not  so  plain,  at  first  view,  as  I 
wish,  I  compare  parallel  passages,  and  evolve  the  meaning  by 
all  proper  means,  under  the  guidance  of  the  fountain  of  truth,, 
the  spirit  of  God,  who  has  promised  to  "  guide  us  in  all  truth.''* 
John  16,   13. 

To  charge  the  Holy  Scriptures  with  obscurity,  or  deficiency 
no  christian  will  venture  to  take  it  on  himself:  to  do  so,  would 
be  to  bring  a  charge  against  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  obscurity 
that  exist  is  not  on  the  pages  of  the  Bible,  but  in  our  own  minds. 
Hence  the  Spirit  of  God  teaches  us  to  pray — "  Open  thou  mine 
eyes  that  I  may  behold  wondrous  things  out  of  thy  law !  " 
[  Psalm  119,  18.  ]  and  shall  I  dare  to  call  that  obscure  or  imper- 
fect, which  the  Spirit  of  God  gave  forth,  and  has  declared  to  be 
clear  or  "plain  to  him  that  understandeth;"  so  that  he  may  run 
who  readeth  it"?  Shall  I  dare  to  add  human  traditions,  or  the 
laws  of  a  mortal  man  to  that  Rule  which  God  has  given  to  the 
Church,  and  pronounced  is  his  Divine  Majesty,  as  the  only  law- 
giver, to  be  "  perfect"  and  "  sure"  and  "  right,"  and  "  pure9" 
[Ps.  19.]  Should  T  dare  to  add  to  God's  holy  word,  who  has 
laid  this  solemn  command  on  Protestant,  Pope,  and  Priest,  say- 
ing,  "  ADD     THOU     NOT     UNTO      HIS    WORDS,    LEST     HE    REPROVE 

THEE  AND  THOU  BE  FOUND  A  LIAR  !" — [Pi'ov.  30,  6.]  Shall  any 
man,  priest  or  lay  man,  dare  to  add  to  that  Holy  Book  of  God 
which  the  Holy  Spirit  has  made  perfect,  and  closed  up,  and  seal- 
ed with  a  tremendous  malediction  on  the  mortal  who  shall  ven- 
ture "  to  add  to  it  or  take  away  from  it.""  [Revel.  22,  18,  19.] 
1  can  appeal,  in  controversy,  to  no  tribunal  but  to  that  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  speaking  in  the  sacred  Scriptures  ; — who  has  ex- 
presssly  enjoined  on  us  this  command,  [Isaiah  8th,  19,  20.] 
"  Should  not  a  people  seek  to  their  God?  for  the  living  to  the 
dead  9   to  the  law,  and  to  the  testimony,  if  we  speak  not 

according  to  this    word,   it  is  BECAUSE   THERE    IS    NO    LIGHT    Iff 

THEM."  The  Bible  contains  the  whole  religion  of  the  Protest- 
ant. But  if  a  mortal  man  has  a  right  to  add  to",  God's  word, 
then  why  may,  he  not  also  alter,  and  new  model  it  9  But  the 
man,  bo  he  Pope,  Priest,  or  Protestant,  who  would   dare  to  do 


6 

this  is  taking  on  him  to  usurp  the  throne  of  God  :  he  sits  in  the 
temple  of  God,  showing  himself  that  he  is  God  !  He  sits  in 
judgment  on  his  maker — calling  him  up  to  his  bar,  and  daring 
to  dictate  to  God  !  If  this  be  not  the  consummation  of  blasphe- 
mous daring,  I  profess  1  know  not  what  can  be  ! 

As  for  traditions  and  oral  laws,  we  will  treat  them  with  the 
same  respect  as  we  do  the  Koran  of  Mohammed,  until  the  evi- 
dence of  their  divinity  be  produced,  and  established  by  pro- 
phecy, tongues  and  miracles  :  and  the  fact  be  confirmed  that 
God  gave  them  to  the  Church  of  Christ  for  a  Rule. 

As  for  the  Fathers  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  Churches,  I  pro- 
fess to  read  them  as  much  as  any  of  my  learned  antagonists. 
And  I  will  receive  their  pages  with  profound  veneration,  and  sit 
at  their  feet,  as  the  expositors  of  truth,  as  soon  as  the  Catholic 
Church  of  Rome  shall  produce  a  genuine  copy  of  them  as  the 
fathers  wrote,  and  left,  their  sentiments  : — namely  and  editio  ex- 
purgata,  free  of  all  the  scandalous  alterations  and  corruptions 
made  in  them,  by  the  monks  of  the  dark  ages  ! 

For  the  Pope,  1  shall  yield  myself  a  dutiful  son  of '^  Holy 
Mother  Church,"  and  throw  myself  at  his  Holiness'  feet  as  soon 
as  he  can  produce,  before  the  Christian  world,  his  genuine,  and 
authentic  credentials,  from  the  court  of  heaven  ;  confirmed  in- 
fallibly by  the  miraculous  gifts  of  tongues,  and  prophecy,  and 
miracles — as  the  holy  Apostles  did — that  God  Almighty  has 
really  constituted  him,  the  legal  deposit  of  truth;  the  fountain 
of  immaculate  purity,  and  the  accredited  expounder  of  the  Holy 
Bible;  to  create  mental  light,  and  with  his  keys  seal  up  darkness 
in  the  heretical  mind  ;  and  be  the  final  judge  of  controversy.  I 
am  inclined  to  think  that  the  world  has  become  rather  too  en- 
lightened to  give  credit  to  a  man  who  takes  it  into  his  head  to- 
set  up  for  the  "standard"  of  truth,  as  one  who  is  admitted  into 
the  secrets  of  Heaven,  and  a  cabinet  minister  of  the  Court  of 
the  Almighty.  Nay,  so  unruly  has  the  human  mind  become 
in  consequence  of  its  bursting  the  horrid  chains  of  darkness 
and  superstition,  and  emancipating  itself  from  the  ghostly  pow- 
er of  the  dark  ages,  that  it  not  only  ventures  to  call  a  man  a 
fanatic;  but  actually  to  propose  a  tight  jacket,  and  a  bedlam, 
for  the  man  who  would  enact  the  scenes  of  former  days ;  and 
propose,  and  constitute  himself  the  final  judge  of  controversy, 
to  set  up  claims  over  God's  own  word  ; — pass  gag  laws  against 
freedom  of  speech  and  tiie  press  ;  to  forge  chains  lor  the  human 
conscience  ;  and  prevent  the  progress  of  glorious  liberty  ! — This 
is  Protestantism. 

On  the  contrary,  every  body  knows  that  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  rejects  these  opinions  of  Protestants  with  disgust.    They 


deny,  with  indignation  that  the  written  word  of  God,  or,  the  Holy 
Ghost  speaking  in  the  holy  sciiptures,  either  is, or  can  be  iheruleof 
fmth^  or  Judge  of  controversy.  What  we  call  God  speaking  in  the 
scriptures,  they  venture  to  pronounce  to  be  obscure  powerless ^i}ii\d. 
utterly  unfit  to  be  a  Ruler  or  Judge.  What  we  call  the  voice  of 
God  speaking:  in  the  Holy  Word,  has,  with  them,  no  authority,  no 
power,  no  binding  obligation  on  the  conscience: — until  the  Pope, 
or  a  Council,  or  the  Pope  and  a  Council^  or  the  Holy  Church 
pronounce  the  word  and  give  it  vitality  and  authority  !  Even 
God  cannot  speak  through  his  own  word  with  either  intelligence 
or  authority  until  the  Pope  shall  bid  it  have  intelligence  and  au- 
thority !  He  is  the  "  living  speaking  Oracle,"  of  truth,  the  "only 
final  Judge  of  controversy  ! 

Hence  it  is  a  moral  imposi-ibility  that  the  Protestant  and  the 
Roman  Catholic  ever  can  agree  upon  this  point. 

I  am  fully  aware,  Mr.  Editor,  of  the  object  which  the  learned 
Priests  had  in  view,  in  putting  the  question  to  me,  in  their 
"  acceptance,"  of  my  "  challenge  ;"  respecting  the  Rule  of  my 
Faith  and  the  Judge.  But  1  am  resolved  that  no  barrier  shall 
be  allowed  to  rise  up  here,  to  prevent  discussion,  on  the  main 
points  which  I  have  selected  for  myself.  And  1  hope  Mr.  Edi- 
tor, that  you  also  will  allow  none  to  be  thrown  in  the  way. 

And  I  can  retort  on  my  learned  opponents:  I  can  even,  for 
the  sake  of  argument,  grant  them  the  benefit  of  their  "  living, 
speaking  Oracle,"  for  a  season  :  what  will  they  gain  from  it  ? 

They  believe,  and  do  here  insinuate,  that  the  absence  and 
want  of  a  livi7igf  speaking  oracle,  has  originated  and  perpetuated 
the  various  divisions  and  sects  among  Protestants.  And  this  has 
afforded  a  rich  harvest  of  materials  for  our  good  humored  oppo- 
nent's eloquence.  Every  body  in  New  York  State,  and  in  Penn- 
sylvania, has  heard  Dr.  Power's  famous  and  eloquent  sermon  on 
Unity,  Catholicity,  and  the  endless  divisions  of  the  heretics ; — 
Socinians,  Arminians,  Lutherans,  Calvinists,  et  id  genus  omne ! 

Now,  sir,  it  so  happens  that  we  Protestants  are  also  quite  elo- 
quent on  this  very  point,  and  with  the  same  materials  too  : — 
We  say,  "Behold,  ye  men  of  the  world,  a  picture  of  the  Protes- 
tant's mildness,  charity,  and  forbearance  !  See  how  all  sects  and 
classes  of  Christians  can  live  in  peace  and  harmony,  in  the 
United  States, — a  blessed  republic,  where  there  is  no  established 
religion ;  no  union  of  Church  and  State  !  What  a  glorious 
change  of  times  ! — There  is  not,  perhaps  one  sect  now  known 
among  us  which  has  not,  in  one  age,  or  other,  sprung  up  in  the 
bosom  of  <'  Holy  Mother."  But,  then,  sirs,  the  Holy  Inquisi- 
tion sought  them  out  with  dutiful  and  assiduous  care,  and  made 
CLORious  BONFIRES  OF  THEM  !    Evcry  retumipg  year  at  the  Fecist 


8 

of  Charity^  called  an  Auto  da  fe,  did  Holy  Mother  turn  all 
these  young  heretics,  and  would-be  founders  of  sects,  into  the 
iire,  and  burnt  them  up.  And  by  way  of  maternal  kindness  sent 
them  to  the  fire  of  perdition  ! 

But,  after  all,  it  is  a  pleasant  piece  of  humor,  to  hear  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  Priests  ridiculing  *'  the  endless  divisions,  and 
sects  of  the  Protestants;  while  they  laud  the  unity  of  Holy 
Mother  Church,  created  and  cemented  by  their  living,  speaking 
Oracle!  What !  This  coming  from  the  members  of  the  Roman 
-Church; — a  Church  containing,  in  her  bosom,  more  divisions, 
and  sects,  than  all  those  of  Protestants  !  A  Church  rent  and 
torn  by  divisions  of  the  most  untractable  and  irreconcilable 
kind  !     Ask  you  for  proof  9 

Witness  the  feuds  in  that  day  when  three  rival  Popes  were 
mutually  putting  the  sacred  ban  of  Heaven  on  each  other !  Wit- 
ness the  divisions  and  horrid  scenes  of  conflict  in  the  bosom  of 
Holy  Mother  in  the  great  Western  Schism  which  every  Roman 
Catholic  historian  details.  At  the  death  of  Pope  Gregory  XL, 
two  Popes,  rivals,  were  elected  by  the  two  ferocious  factions ; 
they  mutually  cursed  and  excommunicated  each  other.  Alas  ! 
where  was  "  the  one  living  speaking  oracle  !  "  then  !  This  schism 
and  its  evils  existed  from  A.  D.  1378  to  A.  D.  1428.  [See  Du 
Puy,  Histoire  &c.  and  Dupin  &:c.J 

SVitness  the  divisions  caused  in  doctrines  by  the  Augustines, 
conflicting  with  other  sects  !  Witness  the  violent  feuds  between 
the  Jansenists  and  the  Jesuits  in  France,  which  set  at  defiance 
the  entreaties  of  the  Pope,  and  even  the  thunders  of  the  Vatican  ! 
Witness  the  divisions  in  sentiment,  and  doctrines,  and  rites, 
caused  by  the  Dominicans,  so  famous  for  their  zeal  in  burning, 
better  and  more  virtuous  men  than  themselves  ;  and  the  differ- 
ent sects  of  gray  friars,  and  white,  and  black ;  and  the  mendi- 
cants !  Witness  the  exasperating  feuds  between  the  Franciscans 
and  the  Dominicans,  touching  the  immaculate  conception  of  the 
Virgin  Mary.  The  former,  stoutly  maintaining  that  she  was 
conceived  by  her  mother,  as  pure  and  innocent  as  Jesus  Christ 
was.  And  the  latter  sect,  with  no  less  than  Saint  Bernard  at 
their  head,  insisting  that  this  was  a  damnable  heresy !  Witness 
the  eternal  wars,  in  the  bosom  of  Holy  Mother,  between  these 
unnatural  and  turbulent  sons,  the  Scotists,  and  the  Thomists  ! 
From  time  immemorial  the  French  and  the  Flemings  have  openly 
opposed  and  denounced  the  Pope's  supreme  dominion  in  the 
Church  I  And  in  their  turn  the  Popes  have  dutifully  denounced 
them,  and  hurled  their  potent  bulls  against  the  refractory  Galil- 
ean Church.  Witness  the  terrific  feuds  and  brawls  of  the  Je- 
suits, the  Benedictines,  and  Dominicans.  Witness  the  six  grand 


9 

heads  of  controversy  in  the  sixteenth  century,  which  rent  the 
Holy  Church  in  pieces ;  and  which  are  familiar  to  every  Roman 
Catholic  student  of  their  own  iiistories!  The  fierce  and  indomi- 
table Jesuits  were  pitted  against  the  Jansenists  and  Dominicans, 
and  Augustines.  Sometimes  the  Jesuits  and  Dominicans  were 
pitted  against  each  other,  as,  for  instance,  on  the  doctrines  of 
grace  !  At  other  times,  the  Jesuits  and  the  Dominicans  united 
on  the  efficacy  of  Sacramen's,  opposing  all  other  sects!  [See 
Dr.  Courrayer's  translation  of  Paul  Sarpi's  Council  of  Trent.] 

Witness,  moreover,  the  controversy  in  Holy  Mother  Church, 
in  the  sixteenth  century  between  M.  Bains  a  doctor  of  Louvain, 
and  his  opponents,  touching  the  doctrines  which  now  divide 
Protestants.  Whoever  will  read  carefully  the  history  of  the 
Romish  Church,  of  that  age,  will  see  within  the  very  bosom  of 
Unity  itself,  positively,  almost  all  the  different  sects  of  Protes- 
tants. [1  refer  to  the  Roman  Catholic  reader,  in  proof  of  this  to 
the  Jesuit,  Dominick  Colonia's  work  ^'Biblotkeque  Janseniste,''^ 
&,c.  published  in  A.  D.  1735.]  Witness  the  violent  conflict  be- 
tween the  Franciscans  and  the  Pope  John  XXII.  in  the  four- 
teenth century  !  and  the  fierce  contest  between  the  Jesuits,  on 
the  one  side,  and  the  Augustine  doctors,  and  the  University  of 
Louvain,  and  of  Douay  !  Witness  the  long  and  furious  contro- 
versy between  the  Molinists  of  Spain,  with  the  Augustines  and 
Thomists,  and  which  set  at  defiance  Pope  Clement  VIH.  and 
all  his  influence,  for  a  long  season  !  Witness  the  controversy, 
kindled  in  France,  by  Quesnel's  New  Testament ;  which  was 
condemned  by  the  famous  bull  Unigenitus  of  Pope  Clement  XL; 
but  which  was  firmly  sustained  by  the  appellants  of  that  king- 
dom, in  defiance  of  the  Pope  ! 

In  fine,  I  know  scarcely  a  single  century  of  Holy  Mother 
Church's  history,  when  the  bosom  of  her  Unity  was  not  a  fright- 
ful arena  of  fierce  contending  Priests,  whom  no  power  on  earth, 
fallible  or  infl\llible,  could  compose,  till  they  had  exhausted 
their  mutual  fury  !  See  the  pages  of  Nicholas  de  Clemengis  ; 
Wessel  of  Groningen;  Cassander,  Rayner,  and  Ferus,  Cap.  8. 
Judic. 

As  for  Unity, — there  was  Unity,  Mr.  Editor,  I  do  readily 
admit  itj — most  striking  Unity  in  Holy  Mother.  There  was 
U7iity  in  opposing  the  Spirit  of  God  speaking  in  the  Scriptures, 
as  the  only  rule  and  judge.  There  was  unity  in  revering  imnges 
and  relics;  and  invoking  the  Saints.  There  was  unity  in  decla- 
ring for  severi  sacraments  instead  of  the  Bible's  two.  There  was 
unity  in  the  belief  and  profit  of  purgatory  :  there  is  perfect  unity 
in  believing  that  the  Pope  has  the  keys  of  Heaven  ;  and  that  he 
and  the  Priests  will  allow  no  heretic  to  pass  in  :  and  that  all 


iO 

Protestants  are  heretics !  There  is  perfect  unity  in  Mother 
Church  in  denying  the  necessity  of  regeneration  and  a  new 
heart,  by  the  Holy  Ghost;  perfect  unity  in  denying  that  Christ 
finished  his  atonement  on  the  cross:  on  the  contrary,  that  he  is 
continually  to  be  offered  up,  afresh,  for  the  sins  of  the  quick  and 
the  dead  (heretics  always  excepted  I  )  in  the  unbloody  sacrifice 
of  the  Mass!  There  is  perfect  unity  m  denying  the  justification 
of  the  sinner  by  the  righteousness  of  Christ  alone  !  There  is 
perfect  unity  in  believing  that  Christ  is  not  the  only  mediator, 
that  the  holy  virgin  is  mediatrix  ;  and  "Jwre  matris  jubet  Jilio ;'''' 
and  by  "the  rights  of  a  mother  commands  her  son  "  to  hear  us. 
[SeQ  the  Rosary  and  Missal.  And  particularly  see  the  Psalmster 
of  the  Blessed  Virgin,  p.  84  of  Bntiriventurn's  works.  The  edi- 
lion  I  consult  is  that  of  1484,  Argent :  from  a  Roman  Catholic 
printing  press.] 

In  this  Psalter  the  Saitit,  who  is  worshipped  by  every  good 
Catholic,  on  July  14,  has  gone  over  the  Psalms,  and  for  Lord, 
^c.  has  inserted  Our  Lady,  or  Holy  Mother^  ^c.  And  in  one 
of  the  chaunts  at  the  end  of  the  psalter,  he  sets  down  this  "  O 
mother  of  God,"  ^'jubefiliOf^^  "  command  thy  son,  £s?c." 

This  is  a  specimen  of  the  true  unity  which  characterises  the 
Holy  Mother.  No  other  unity  such  as  we  admit  of,  is  promoted 
by  this  "  living,  speaking  Oracle."  And  it  must  be  obvious  to 
all  who  have  followed  me  in  this  discussion,  that  it  is  worse  tha-n* 
vain,  to  pause  here,  to  settle  this  Rule  and  Judge.  And  I  have 
no  doubt  that,  my  learned  antagonists,  being  all  men  of  sound 
discriminating  sense,  will  cordially  acquiesce  with  me  in  this 
opinion.  Indeed,  I  cannot  see  how  any  reflecting  man,  who 
thinks  for  himself,  and  not  by  proxy,  can,  for  one  moment,  hesi- 
tate on  this  subject. 

Besides  sir, — "  Ego  et  Rex," — I  and  the  learned  Priests  have, 
already,  tried  our  mutual  strength  on  the  floor,  at  oral  debate. 
And  they  know,  as  well  as  I,  that  we  got  along,  in  perfect  good 
humor,  and  quite  successfully,  without  stopping  to  settle  the 
point  about  the  Ride  and  Judge.  Each  one  took  his  own  way; 
as  I  now  respectfully  propose  to  do;  and  went  straight  forward 
like  honest  men,  and  skilful  controversalists.  I  mean,  therefore, 
Mr.  Editor,  with  your,  and  their  leave,  soon,  to  pass  on  to  one 
great  and  vital  point, — say  the  church. 

I  am,  sir,  your  most  ob't  and  humble  servant, 

W.  C.  BROWNLEE. 
W'  Denmanj  Esq.  Editor^  £s?c.  Uc. 
February  C,  1833. 


11 


Reply  of  IPrs.  Power  ami  Sjevins, 

TO  DR.  BROWNLEE. 

No.  1. 

Rev.  Sir: — The  days  of  chivalry,  at  least  in  the  field  of  reli- 
gious controversy,  are  not  passed.  If  your  weapons  be  as  vari- 
ous as  the  topics  introduced  into  your  last  letter,  we  may  filly 
term  you  the  most  redoubtable  Knight  vrho  has  couched  a  spear 
since  the  days  of  the  Lion-hearted  Richard.  A  "Challenge" 
to  the  Catholic  Prelate  and  Priests  of  this  city  ! !  This,  it  is 
hoped,  indicates  nerve  and  intrepidity,  not  vapid  boast  and  pre- 
sumption;  argument  and  the  ''form  of  sound  words,"  2  Tim.  i. 
13,  not  idle  declamation  and  petulant  phrase; — charity  and  a 
sincere  desire  to  elicit  truth,  not  rancorous  spirit  and  the  dispo- 
sition that  seeks  retreat  under  subterfuge. 

In  entering  on  the  present  controversy,  our  object  is — we 
write  it  sincerely — to  elicit  truth.  Against  the  rules  of  courte- 
ous intercourse  it  shall  be  our  endeavour  not  to  offend.  From 
you,  reverend  sir,  a  Minister  of  good  education  and  reputed  abi- 
lities, those  courtesies  are  expected,  which  characterise  "  a  mo- 
ral, sensible,  and  well-bred  man." 

The  Roman  Catholic  and  Protestant  religion  are  not  merely 
differences  in  opinion,  they  are  opposite,  and  must  always  mu- 
tually counteract  each  other.  If  the  Catholics  are  right,  your 
reformatio)!  was  not  merely  superfluous,  but  must  be  stigmatised 
as  a  rebellion  against  the  powers  established  by  God  himself  If 
you  hold  the  truth,  the  chief  part  of  Catholic  worship  is  not  only 
erroneous,  but  idolatrous;  an  offence  against  Heaven,  instead  of 
a  reasonable  service.  Taking  the  subject  in  this  point  of  view, 
we  think  it  a  duty  incumbent  on  every  sincere  Christian— Pre- 
late or  Peasant — to  have  recourse  to  every  possible  means  by 
which  truth  may  be  discovered,  and  to  test  every  point,  by  in- 
vestigating the  principles  upon  which  each  of  these  Churches 
claims  her  authority. 

From  your  letter  it  is  not  difficult  to  infer  the  form  of  warfare 
you  would  adopt.  You  have  taken  a  range  as  extensive  as  it  is 
indefinite.  You  are,  at  once,  familiar  with  almost  every  contro- 
verted point.  Genius  like  to  yours,  mighty  in  theological  lore, 
and  at  home  in  the  very  abysses  of  erudition,  may  ambition  a 
limitless  expanse,  but  we  are  content  with  a  space  of  very  nar- 
row dimensions : — our  aim  is  concentration  of  vision.     When 


13 

many  objects  are  presented  to  the  view,  there  is  danger  of  dis- 
tracting the  attention  from  singleness  of  scrutiny,  and  producing 
that  obliquity  of  perception  which  you  classically  term  '^squint.^^ 
We  are  of  the  old  School.  We  lay  no  claims  to  the  illumina- 
tion produced  by  the  modern  schoolmaster.  Hence,  it  is  con- 
ceived, the  vast  field  of  polemical  theology  is  too  extensive  to  be 
embraced  at  one  glance;  and  it  is,  also,  respectfully  suggested, 
that,  had  you  restricted  yourself  to  the  single  question  asked — 
the  RULE  OF  FAITH — uiuch  labour,  at  present  superfluous,  might 
have  been  saved.  To  establish  the  right  Rule  of  Faith  is  a  point 
of  the  utmost  importance.  The  v/ho!e  system  of  religion  de- 
pends upon  it.  It  is  its  key-stone.  To  adopt  a  wrong  rule,  and 
to  follow  a  false  system  of  religion  are,  equivalenlly,  synonymous 
terms,  or,  at  least,  the  second  is  involved  in  the  first.  Hence 
our  great  suprise  at  finding  so  zealous  and  professing  a  Chris- 
tian as  Dr.  Brownlee,  manifesting  any  reluctance  to  investigate 
this  point,  as  tending  "  to  throw  a  barrier  in  our  way,  and  pre- 
vent our  discussion!!!"  But,  reverend  sir,  though  you,  "a 
teacher  in  Israel,"  will  not  be  stopt  at  the  very  threshold  of  the 
discussion  by  any  invitation  to  settle  the  Rule  of  Faith  and  the 
Judge  of  Controversy,  you  will  permit  us  to  '*  pause  here"  and 
examine  this  point,  in  the  hope  that  by  the  grace  of  God,  we 
may  agree,  and  ''  stand  no  longer  in  the  relation  of  Protestant 
and  Catholic." 

You  tell  us,  reverend  sir,  "That  the  only  Rule  of  Faith,  and 
final  Judge  of  Controversy,  with  every  Protestant,  is  the  Holy 
Spirit,  speaking  to  us  in  the  written  Word  of  God,  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  containing  all  the  books  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, AND  ALL  the  BOOKS  OF  THE   NeW  TESTArdENT.       Ju  thcSG 

God  spoke  to  the  Church,  in  Hebrew  and  in  Greek,  if  there  be 
any  thing  not  so  plain  at  first  view,  as  I  wish,  I  compare  paral- 
lel passages,  and  evolve  the  meaning  by  all  proper  means,  under 
the  guidance  of  the  fountain  of  truth,  the  Spirit  of  God,  who  has 
promised  '  to  guide  us  in  all  truth^^  John  xvi.  13." 

Having  stated  your  Rule  of  Faith,  reverend  sir,  you  appear  to 
think  all  difficulty  removed,  all  objections  answered,  for  you  say, 
"  I  do  not  mean  to  be  stopt  at  the  very  threshold  of  the  discus- 
sion, by  any  invitation  to  settle  the  Rule  of  Faith,  and  the  Judge 
of  Controversy.''^  Do  you  mean  to  affirm  the  Rule  of  Faith  to 
be  of  no  importance  *?  If  of  no  importance,  why  state  it,  if  of 
importance,  why  shrink  from  canvassing  its  truth  '?  If  rational, 
it  will  pass  unscathed  through  the  ordeal  of  criticism;  if  not  ra- 
tional, it  will  be  a  public  good  to  brand  it  as  an  imposture, -s 
When  you  assert  you  *'  will  not  be  stopt  at  the  very  threshold  of 
the  discussion  by  any  invitation  to  settle  the  Rule  of  Faith,  and 


13 

the  Judge  of  Controversy ^^^  are  we  to  infer,  are  the  members  of 
your  creed  in  the  Middle  Dutch  Church  to  infer,  that  the  Pro- 
testant Rule  of  Faith  is  an  untenable  position,  the  *'  baseless  fa- 
bric of  a  vision,"  a  specious  subterfuge  to  warp  the  minds  of  the 
unreflecting  and  cheat  them  into  submission'?  Should  you  re- 
fuse to  found  your  Rule  of  Faith  on  argument,  will  you  deem  it 
a  trespass  against  civility  to  suspect  that  you  cannot  maintain 
this  vital  point?  But,  while  this  is  submitted  to  your  most  se- 
rious consideration,  we  refer  you  to  the  records  of  history  to 
discover  the  uses  that  are  made  of  your  Protestant  Rule  of 
Faith  in  the  early  days  of  Christianity.  The  Valentinians,  Eu- 
nomians,  and  Marcionites,  were  heretics,  and  they  sought  a  shel- 
ter under  it.  It  was  the  final  refuge  to  Maximinus,  the  Arian 
Bishop  : — it  is  now  the  watchword  of  every  Protestant.  Does 
not  the  coincidence  suggest  matter  for  reflection,  nay,  matter 
for  legitimate  deduction.  The  matter  for  reflection  we  leave 
you  to  develope,  our  deduction  is,  simply,  this.  Has  it  ever  been 
known  that  the  guilty  appeal  to  a  judge  where  certain  condemna- 
tion awaited  them '^  We  believe  not.  But  the  abettors  of  heresy, 
and  heresy  involves  guilty  always  appealed  to  the  sentence  of  the 
Sacred  Scriptures.  Why  did  they  appeal  !■  Because  the  Scrip- 
tures, simply  as  Scriptures,  could  not  give  a  living  and  effective 
utterance  to  their  condemnation,  and  this  it  is  presumed,  has 
been  the  influencing  motive,  why  the  Scriptures  have  been  ap- 
pealed to  by  Protestants  as  their  only  Jud«-e  of  Controversy. 

We  beg  to  inform  you,  that  in  our  opinion,  you  wrote  without 
reflection,  when  you  told  us,  that  as  a  Protestant,  you  "com- 
pare parallel  passages,  and  evolve  the  meaning  by  all  proper 
means,  if  there  be  any  thing  not  so  plain  at  first  sight  in  the 
Scriptures  as  you  wish."  What  are  we  to  think,  reverend  sir, 
when  we  find  Protestants  disagreeing  on  this  fundamental  point. 
Doctor  Field,  in  his  Book  of  the  Church,  says,  ^^  that  neither 
conference  of  places,  nor  the  consideration  of  things /)rec6c?cn^  or 
subsequent,  or  looking  into  the  original,  are  of  any  force  unless 
we  find  the  things,  which  we  conceive  to  be  understood,  and 
meant  in  the  places  interpreted,  to  be  consequent  on  the  Rule 
of  Faith,  and  which  Rule  of  Faith  must  be  tried  by  the  general 
practice  of  the  Church,  or  the  renowned  of  all  ages."  Here,  Sir, 
is  a  learned  Protestant  utterly  condemning  your  Rule  of  Faith 
and  Judge  of  Controversy. 

We  think  it  a  fair  question  to  ask  you,  reverend  sir,  how  do 
you  know  that  the  Bible  is  the  Word  of  God?  How  do  you 
know  the  books  written  by  divine  inspiration  9  Does  the  Bible 
contain  the  whole  of  the  Word  of  God,  or  does  it  not^  These 
are  fair  questions.  Dr.  Brownlee.  For,  if  it  be  true  that  the  Scrip- 
tures are  the  sole  rule  of  Faith,  there  ought  to  be  the  most  un- 


14 

doubled  evi(kn€e  on  these  points — presunnptive  evidence  will 
not  do.  If  there  be  not  positive  evidence,  there  must  be  an  un* 
certainty,  and  if  there  be  an  uncertainty  therie  must  be  room  for 
doubt.  Now,  if  this  be  the  case,  the  Scriptures  so  far  from  be- 
ing a  rule  of  faith  will  be  no  rule  at  all,  for,  where  there  is  room 
for  fJoubt,  there  can  be  no  certainty  of  faith,  and  consequently 
no  faith  can  exist.  Vv'here  then  is  this  evidence,  reverend  sir'? 
Undoubtedly  it  is  not  in  the  Bible  itself,  for  no  book  can  give 
evidence  of  its  own  authenticity.  Is  there  any  internal  evidence 
in  the  Scriptures']  If  there  be,  why  does  it  not  flash  on  the 
minds  of  all,  and  why  are  there  Deists  and  other  unbelievers^ — 
Should  you  say  that  the  Scriptures  were  handed  down  to  us 
through  every  age  in  such  a  manner  that  no  man  of  reason  can 
doubt  of  their  authenticity,  then  we  will  agree  with  you.  But, 
answer  us,  by  w^hom  have  they  been  handed  down '?  We  beg  of 
you  to  solve  this  question,  for  an  important  argument  depends  on 
it.  To  know  those  by  whom  they  were  handed  down  is  a  proper 
knowledge,  for  on  their  credit  and  faith  depends  the  proof  of 
their  authority.  The  veracity  o'i  their  tradition  must  be  the  cor- 
ner stone  of  your  faith,  and  it  must  be  believed  with  divine  faith 
before  you  can  believe  a  word  of  Scriptures.  Again  we  repeat, 
answer  this  one  plain  question,  by  whom  were  they  handed 
down  9 

The  rule  of  faith  with  every  Protestant,  and  the  final  judge  of 
controversy,  is,  you  say,  "the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  to  us  in  the 
written  word  of  God  the  Holy  Scriptures;  containing  all  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  all  the  books  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament." We  presume  you  admit  the  Lutherans  into  the  fellow- 
ship of  good  Protestants,  and  that  their  rule  of  truth  is  ^Hhe 
Holy  Spirit,  speaking  in  the  written  word  of  God,  the  Holy 
Scriptures."  Now,  reverend  sir,  if  we  take  the  Epistle  of  St. 
James,  to  the  Lutheran,  and  ask  him  if  that  Epistle  be  canonical 
Scripture,  he  will  tell  me  it  is  not — if  we  ask  his  reason  for  re- 
jecting it — his  answer  will  be  that  he  rejects  the  Epistle  of  St. 
James  on  the  authority  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  speaking  in  the 
written  word  of  God,  the  Holy  Scriptures.  Were  w^e  to  present 
this  identical  Epistle  to  you,  reverend  sir,  and  put  to  you  the 
same  questions  we  did  to  the  Lutheran,  you  would  tell  us  the 
Epistle  of  St.  James  is  canonical  Scripture,  and  this  you  believe 
on  the  aidhorily  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  speaking  in  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures. Here,  then,  we  find  the  Spirit,  telling  the  Lutheran,  that 
he  is  to  reject  a  book  as  uncanonical,  and  telling  the  Calvinist 
that  the  same  book  is  canonical  and  divinely  inspired.  It  is  not 
going  too  far,  to  say  that  this  spirit  of  contradiction  is  a  spirit  of 
falsehood,  and,  is  it  not  blasphemous  to  say,  that  such  a  spirit  is 
the  spirit  of  God. 


15 

We  know  not  if  Dr.  Brownlee  ever  saw  the  following'  confess 
sion  of  the  famous  Wesley,  one  of  the  strictest  adherents  to  the 
Protestant  Rule  of  Faith  and  Judge  of  Controversy :  we  shall 
give  it,  as  one  of  the  most  perfect  developements  of  the  practi- 
cal consequences  of  this  rule. — ^'1  am  not  afraid  to  lay  open  to 
you,  said  the  reverend  enthusiast,  what  have  been  the  inmost 
thoughts  of  my  heart.  I  have  thought  that  I  am  a  creature  of  a 
day,  passing  through  life  as  an  arrow  through  the  air.  I  am  a 
spirit  come  from  God  and  returning  to  God,  just  hovering  over 
the  great  gulph,  till  a  {q\n  moments  hence,  I  am  no  more  seen. 
I  drop  into  an  unchangeable  eternity  !  I  want  to  know  one 
thing — the  way  to  Heaven — how  to  land  safe  on  that  happy 
shore — God  himself  has  condescended  to  teach  the  way — for  this 
very  reason  he  came  from  Heaven.  He  hath  written  it  down  in 
a  book,  O  give  me  that  book — at  any  price  give  me  the  book  of 
God  !  I  have  it — here  is  knowledge  enough  for  me.  Let  me  be 
homo  uniiis  libri.  Here  then  I  am  far  from  the  busy  ways  of 
men — I  sit  down  alone,  only  God  is  here.  In  his  presence  I 
often  read  his  book,  for  this  is  to  find  the  way  to  Heaven.  Is 
there  a  doubt  concerning  the  meaning  of  what  I  read?  Does 
any  thing  appear  dark,  and  intricate'?  I  lift  up  my  heart  to  the 
Father  of  lights — Lord  is  it  not  thy  word  ^  Jf  any  man  lack 
wisdom  let  him  ask  of  God ! — Thou  givest  liberally  and  upbraid- 
est  not.  Thou  hast  said,  if  any  be  ivilling  to  do  thy  luill  he  shall 
know.  am  willing  to  do.  Let  me  know  thy  will.  1  then 
search  and  consider  parallel  passages  of  Scripture  comparing 
spiritual  things  with  spiritual.  I  meditate  thereon  with  all  the 
earnestness  and  attention  of  which  my  mind  is  capable.  If  any 
doubt  still  remains,  I  consult  those  who  are  experienced  in  the 
things  of  God  ;  and  then  the  Scriptures,  whereby  being  dead, 
they  yet  speak.  And  what  I  thus  learn  that  I  teach.  Here  Lev. 
sir,  we  have  your  Rule  of  Faith  and  Judge  of  Controversies  aptly 
expressed  in  the  above  much  admired  passage; — it  also  con- 
tains its  own  refutation. — The  Methodist  reformer  first  asserts, 
that  in  the  Bible  there  is  knowledge  enough  for  him,  that  he  wants 
no  other  book,  yet  almost  in  the  same  instant,  he  is  forced  to  con- 
fess that  there  is  not  knowledge  enough  in  the  Bible,  for,  after 
praying,  searching,  meditating,  comparing  texts  with  texts,  he 
tells  us  that  he  consulted  the  experience  of  living  witnesses,  and 
the  vvritings  of  the  dead,  for  knowledge  in  dark  and  intricate 
passages,  where  Scripture  alone  could  not  remove  his  doubts, — 
and  then  concludes,  that,  what  he  thus  learned,  not  from  the 
Bible  only,  but  from  the  testimony  of  dead  and  living  witnesses 
in  addition  to  it,  that  he  taught.  But  did  he  succeed,  even  with 
those  helps  to  remove  all  his  doubts  concerning  the  way  to 
Heaven,  which   it  was  his  object  to  tind  for  liimsi  If  and  then 


16 

show  others?  Let  him  speak  for  himself.  **  I  have  set  down  in 
the  following  sermons,"  says  he,  "what  I  find  in  the  Bible  con- 
cerning the  way  to  Heaven. — But  some  may  say  I  have  mistaken 
the  way  myself,  although  I  take  it  upon  me  to  teach  it  to  others 
— It  is  very  possible  that  I  have  ! !  !  Wesley  owns  then,  it 
was  very  possible  he  had  mistaken  the  v/ay  to  Heaven,  though 
under  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  speaking  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures.  You,  sir,  must  express  a  similar  admission  if  as  can- 
did a,s  the  Methodist  founder.  You  have  nothing  but  your  own 
private  judgment  which  can  never  give  an  infallible  assurance 
to  your  followers,  that  you  are  not  leading  them  astray.  Hence 
we  Catholics  conclude,  and  strictly  and  fairly,  that  the  Protes- 
tant Rule  of  Faith  is  false,  and  that  Scripture  interpreted  by 
every  man,  is  not  the  means  which  Christ  has  established  to 
show  us  the  way  to  Heaven,  and  to  make  us  "  land  safe  on  that 
happy  shore." 

We  earnestly  solicit  your  attention,  Dr.  Brownlee,  to  the  ob- 
servations now  submitted  to  your  consideration — Meet  the  ques- 
tion fairly  and  honestly  as  a  logician,  as  a  theologian — jirove 
your  Rule  of  Faith.  It  is,  and  must  be  the  key-stone  of  your  reli- 
gious system.  If  you  shrink  from  it,  a  reflecting  public — the 
members  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church,  will  attribute  your  conduct 
to  reason  unworthy  of  a  watchman  on  the  turrets  of  Zion.  As 
for  ourselves  we  mean  to  sift  this  point  thoroughly.  We  ask  for 
argument, — cool,  logical  and  theological  argument.  No  decla- 
mation— no  appeal  to  the  prejudices  or  passions  of  your  follow- 
ers. We  in  the  spirit  of  charity,  tender  you  a  few  words  of 
advice. 

When  com\)^r\ng  ^^  paralell passages'^  in  order  <^  to  evolve  the 
meaning  of  the  Scriptures  under  the  guidance  of  the  fountain  of 
truth"  do  not  forget  the  simile  de  cauda  equina,  fmare's  tail)  so 
quaintly  applied  by  old  Donne,  ^'  Sentences  in  scripture  like 
hairs  in  horses  tails,  concur  in  one  root  of  beauty  and  strength, 
but  being  plucked  out  one  by  one  serve  only  as  springs  and 
snares.     See  Edinb.  Rev.  1831,  article  Evangelical  School. 

That  you  and  our  readers  may  know  what  we  require,  our  de- 
mand is  this ;  Tell  us  how  you  know  the  Bible  to  be  the  word 
of  God  ?  How  do  you  know  which  books  were  written  by  divine 
inspiration *?  Does  the  Bible  contain  the  whole  of  the  word  of 
God,  or  does  it  not  9  When  these  questions  are  duly  answered, 
the  other  topics  of  your  letter  will  receive  the  considerations 
they  merit,  from  your  verv  obedient  servants, 

JOHN  POWER, 
THOMAS  C.  LEVINS. 

Mm  Yorkt  February  Uthy  1833. 


17 


BR.  r.  VARZSLA'S  Z,£STTEZl 

TO  DR.  BROWNLEE. 

Rev.  Sir: — No  doubt  you  have  missed  my  signature  in  the  an- 
swer to  your  article,  on  declining  to  enter  into  the  investigation 
of  the  Rule  of  Faith,  with  your  opponents  leave  (which  I  am 
very  glad  they  have  not  granted,)  and  that  you  may  not  think  that 
I  disagree  with  my  learned  companions  on  point  of  doctrine,  or 
in  the  way  of  explaining  it;  or  tliat  there  is  any  misunderstand- 
ing between  us  :  1  take  tliis  opportunity  to  state  that  1  ap- 
prove whatever  they  said,  and  in  the  way  they  said  it;  and  that 
/would  have  signed  the  article  had  /  seen  it  before  it  was 
printed.  The  duties  of  our  ministry  and  some  other  circumstan- 
ces made  it  rather  inconvenient  for  us  to  meet,  and  my  friends 
through  point  of  delicacy  did  not  put  my  name  to  tiieir  article. 
However,  as  I  do  not  see  any  necessity  of  joining  them,  either 
of  them  being  quite  sufficient  to  defend  our  cause,  /leave  them 
with  you  on  the  field  of  controversy.  Now  by  way  o(  farewell, 
allow  me  to  submit  to  your  consideration  the  memorandum 
that  /made  when  /thought  to  take  part  in  the  discussion,  hop- 
ing that  you  will  excuse  the  want  of  order  as  1  do  not  intend  to 
write  a  regular  article. 

QUERIES. 

1.  Where  in  the  Scriptures  do  you  find  that  the  Scriptures  are 
the  only  rule  of  faith  9  Do  you  establish  this  rule  without  Scrip- 
ture 9  Then  it  is  unscriptural.     Take  care. 

2.  From  what  Scriptures,  were  the  Scriptures  believed,  when 
they  were  first  written  ^ 

3.  Not  the  Scripture  but  its  interpretation  from  the  different 
creeds  of  different  Protestant  sects.  Hence  these  interpretations 
are  real  articles  of  faith.  Now  what  Scripture  have  Protestants 
for  these  interpretations'?  Where  are  they  openly  expressed'? 
You  then  believe  articles  of  faith  not  expressed  in  the  Scripture. 

4.  If  the  Scripture  be  so  plain,  why  do  Protestants  explain  it'? 
why  do  you  preach'?  /advise  you  dear  sir,  to  spare  yourself  the 
trouble — give  the  Scriptures  to  your  congregation,  and  stay  at 
home. 

5.  You  establish  as  a  rule  of  your  faith  that  the  Scriptures 
must  be  understood  and  observed  according  to  private  interpre- 
tation, and  not  precisely  according  to  the  judgment  of  the 
Church.  Where  is  any  such  thing  said  in  the  Scriptures?  Your 
very  rule  is  unscriptural.     Lookout. 

No.  2.— S 


18 

6.  Why  did  not  Luther  and  Melancton  on  one  side,  and  Cal- 
vin and  Zuinglius  on  the  other,  agree  upon  the  meaning  of  these 
plain  words — This  is  my  body?     Who  have  the  spirit  ? 

7.  You  know,  dear  sir,  the  multitude  of  Bibles  that  Protes- 
tants have  given  to  the  world,  contrary  to  each  other,  on  the 
most  essential  points,  according  to  their  own  doctors.  Pray  tell 
me,  which  of  them  is  your  rule  of  faith,  and  if  you  point  out  any 
of  them,  pray  let  me  know  did  you  ascertain  that  this  and  not 
any  of  the  others,  is  the  infallible  rule  of  faith  9  /  wrote  a  pam- 
phlet entitled  the  three  bibles,  proving  that  Protestants  ac- 
tually give  three  different  Bibles  to  the  people  of  New  York. 
You  found  the  facts  so  evidently  proved,  that  you  did  not  make 
any  defence,  but  you  (or  your  friend  Mr.  Bourne,)  issued  in  the 
Protestant  a  complete  Phillipic  against  the  Managers  of  the 
Bible  Society. — But  1  let  you  know  that  there  are  no  three 
Bibles,  but  four  Bibles  actually  sold  by  your  people,  for  the 
German  Bible  sold  by  the  society  is  still  different  from  all  the 
rest.  Now  point  out  your  rule  of  faith,  before  you  commence 
your  dispute  with  my  learned  friends.  You  may  have  your  choice. 

8.  Why  do  not  Episcopalians  agree  with  Baptists,  and  you 
Presbyterians  with  either  of  them  on  the  point  of  baptism?  Is 
not  the  Scripture  very  plain  7  In  one  of  our  t^erfeaZ  discussions, 
held  at  Clinton  Hall, /called  upon  your  friends  the  ministers  of 
different  persuasions  (and  /  am  sorry  you  were  not  present,)  to 
come  forward  and  to  state  that  they  agree  on  essential  points^ 
and  1  beg  leave  to  copy  the  last  part  of  my  speech,  which  your- 
self printed  in  your  Protestant.  "Gentlemen,"  said  /,  ''you  are 
convinced,  you  do  not  agree  in  the  most  essential  points.  Now 
this  question  must  be  decided  in  presence  of  this  audience,  /am 
ready,  with  all  the  Priests  here  present,  to  take  our  oath  upon 
this  Bible,  that  we  agree  exactly  upon  these  points,  and  upon 
every  point  of  the  Catholic  faith.  Now  come  forward  and  do 
the  same — /  am  sure  you  will  not  dare,  because  this  audience 
that  knows  the  contrary,  would  despise  you  for  your  perjury. 
The  answer  is  a  profound  silence  ;  the  question  is  decided  !  " 
Indeed,  reverend  sir,  the  question  was  decided  in  a  very  public, 
solemn,  and  fair  manner.  Their  rule  of  faith  could  not  bring 
them  to  the  unity  of  doctrine,  their  spirit  did  not  inspire  them, 
and  the  Scriptures  were  not  so  plain  as  they  pretended.  How- 
ever I  give  you  a  chance  to  make  all  right.  Let  the  Protestant 
Bishop  and  any  respectable  Baptist  Minister,  such  as  M'Clay 
and  yourself  on  the  side  of  the  Presbyterians,  give  out  under 
your  signatures,  either  that  the  point  of  Baptism  is  of  no  conse- 
quence, or  that  you  agree  upon  it.  There  is  no  doubt  but  you 
will  do  it,  ad  calendas  groecas. 


19 

9.  Can  the  law  be  the  judge,  who  applies  it  *?  Are  not  the 
Scriptures  the  law  9     Can  they  be  the  judge  9 

10.  Private  spirit  is  fallible,  can  it  be  the  judge  of  an  infalli- 
ble faith? 

11.  Private  spirit  is  unknown  but  to  him  who  possesses  it; 
can  it  be  the  known  rule  of  faith  that  will  gather  men  in  one  in- 
fallible faith  and  religion. 

12.  The  spirit  is  your  key  to  open  the  mysteries  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, but  what  sign  have  you  to  distinguish  the  true  from  the 
evil  spirit 9 — Sincere  prayers? — All  the  sects  of  Christianity, 
and  I  may  say  all  the  religions,  pray  fervently  and  sincerely. — 
The  satisfaction  or  pleasure  of  your  mind  9  In  every  religion  it 
is  experienced.  Constancy  in  religious  feelings 9  We  the  wicked 
papists,  beat  you  all.  But /remember  that  you  did  express  your 
wish  for  signs  on  our  part, — have  you  any  on  your  own^ 

The  only  sign  we  are  informed  of  by  Bolseus  (protestatu  He- 
ron Bol.)  is  that  performed  on  the  poor  Brulleus  by  Calvin,  who 
in  order  to  prove  his  doctrine,  agreed  with  the  unfortunate  man, 
that  he  would  pretend  to  be  dead,  and  his  wife  would  cry,  as 
she  did,  bitterly.  Then  the  Holy  Calvin  came  and  invoked  God 
to  prove  by  the  resurrection  of  that  man,  that  he  was  authorised 
to  teach  ;  and  indeed  his  prayers  were  heard  against  him,  for  the 
man  was  found  actually  dead,  and  the  widow,  confessing  her 
crime,  almost  tore  Calvin  to  pieces.  We  heard  also  of  an  at- 
tempt made  by  Luther  to  restore  the  poor  William  Nisenum, 
who  was  drowned,  and  Staphylus  who  was  witness,  states,  that 
Luther  after  many  very  mysterious  prayers,  made  in  company 
with  his  disciples,  left  the  man,  dead  as  he  was,  because  God  did 
not  hear  him.  At  any  rate,  you  have  no  signs  to  show,  and  there- 
fore you  have  no  right  to  require  them  from  us,  much  less,  when 
you  establish  the  doctrine  that  the  time  of  miracle  is  passed. 

13.  How  can  you  prove  a  man  to  be  a  heretic,  if  he  has  the 
same  rule  of  faith  with  you,  and  the  same  right  to  apply  it? — 
Then  no  heretics.  But  the  Scriptures  say  that  there  are  heretics, 

14.  Can  any  man  learn  by  himself  from  the  Scriptures  every 
essential  point  of  faith  without  any  fear  of  error?  Then  your 
ministry  is  only  to  teach  the  unessentials .  Then  it  is  an  unes- 
sential ministry.     Then  it  is  nothing,  and  this  /  firmly  believe. 

Quotations  from  the  Fathers  of  the  Reformation^  and  their 

eminent  disciples, 
I    beg  of  you,   Rev.  Sir,   to  compare  the  following  text  with 
your  article,  and  see  whether  you  agree  on  the  rule  of  faith  with 
your  leaders,  although  on  this  subject  you  got  enough  in  the  an- 
swer given  by  my  learned  fellow  clergymen. 


so 

Luther. — We  cannot  be  sure  whether  any  man  has  or  Ims 

not  the  true  spirit  of  God. 

I  do  not  presume  to  have  done  what  no  learned  and  holy  man 
ever  did  or  could  do;  that  is,  to  understand  and  explain  the 
Psalms  in  all  their  parts,  and  in  their  real  sense.  I  know  that  it 
is  an  impmlent  temerity  to  assert  that  any  man  can  understand  a 
single  book  of  the  scriptures  in  all  its  parts." — [Prget.  in  Ps.] 

He  thus  wrote  to  Felicanus.  ''If  you  have  not  printed  the  llth 
Ps.  I  beg  of  you  to  leave  out  the  1  Ith  verse,  and  the  three  fol- 
lowing. You  may  observe  how  grossly  I  have  been  mistaken  in 
the  proper  meaning  of  the  words."  [ib.]  Remark  that  Luther 
proceeded  according  to  the  explanation  he  afterwards  reproved^ 
and  gave  it  as  inspired  to  him  from  Heaven.  **  Leave  out  what 
1  dreamed  upon  26  verses  of  the  loth  Ps." 

Speaking  of  the  Zuinglians,  (they  are  your  cousins,  sir,)  says 
Luther, — I  scarce  ever  read  of  a  more  deformed  heresy,  which 
presently  in  the  beginning  was  divided  into  so  many  heads,  such 
a  number  of  sects,  not  one  like  another,  and  such  a  variety  of 
disagreeing  of  opinions.^'  [Tom.  6.  p.  3S0.]  Surely  by  apply- 
ing  your  rule  of  faith. 

"If  the  world  lasts  long,  it  will  be  necessary,  on  account  of 
the  opposite  interpretations  of  the  scriptures,  to  admit  the  de- 
crees of  the  Councils  as  our  refuge.^'  Remark  the  ultimate  rule 
of  faith.     [Lib.  i.  cont.  Zuing.  et  Cecotamp.] 

Calvin. — "  I  confess  that  as  a  prophecy  is  not  given  by  pri- 
vate spirit,  in  like  manner  it  is  not  becoming  to  bring  it  to  any 
private  sense.     ["  Ad.  sess.  4.  Con.  Frid.] 

Keanitius. — "God  has  placed  in  the  Church  the  gift  of  inter- 
pretation, which  as  the  rest  of  gifts,  is  not  granted  to  every  man." 
[In  Ex.  4.  sess.  Con.  Frid.] 

Centuriatorp:s. — The  Apostles  judged  that  scriptures  could 
not  be  understood  without  the  spirit  and  the  interpreter."  [Cent. 
lib.  2.  c.  4.] 

Melancton. — "We  believe  the  Church  as  a  witness,  and  un- 
doubtedly as  a  Doctor.  It  is  a  great  ignorance  to  dream  that 
the  Church  v/as  before  the  word  of  God — men  were  called,  and 
regenerated  by  the  word  of  God  from  the  beginning  of  the 
world.  It  is  ridiculous  to  pretend  that  the  Church  has  more 
authority  than  the  Gospel,  because  she  was  before  the  Gospel, 
as  if  the  Gospel  did  not  exist  until  it  was  written."  Here 
Melancton  trying  to  answer  our  argument  confirms  our  doc- 
trine. The  word  of  God  was  from  the  beginning  kept  by 
men  without  being  written.  The  Gospel  is  not  the  book 
but  the  doctrine,  either  written  or  propagated  by  word,  that 
is,  by  tradition^  and  the  Church  is  the  unexceptionable  wit- 
ness and  Doctor.     Compare  this  doctrine  with  your  rule  of  faith. 


*'The  Church  has  the  greatest  authority.  She  is  called  th« 
people  of  God,  and  she  has  the  promise  that  Christ  will  nevcT 
abandon  her.  Therefore  every  man  of  good  sense  must  be 
moved  by  ihe  authority  of  the  Church."     (ib.) 

*'By  canons  we  understand  the  dogmatical  decrees  against 
the  heretics,  such  as  those  of  the  Council  of  Nice.  Speaking 
of  such  canons,  we  properly  can  say,  that  it  is  in  vain  to  keep 
the  Gospel,  if  they  be  not  kept.  The  Councils  do  not  form  any 
new  articles  of  faith,  but  they  restore  to  the  Church  the  articles 
of  faith  contained  in  the  Scriptures,  and  deformed  by  the  here- 
tics." (ibid.;  Pray,  Dr.  Brownlee,  tell  us  who  is  the  judge  to 
decide  and  point  out  the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures,  according 
to  Melancton.  Poor  MelanctonI!  He  certainly  was  nothing 
but  a  coward  Catholic,  who  through  human  respect  and  fear  be- 
came a  profound  Lutheran.  Christens  tells  us  his  uneasiness 
and  doubts,  (tom.  6.  page  522.)  and  fVolffgangus  fconcoin  de 
mat.j  states  that  Melancton  wrote  to  a  nobleman  by  the  name 
of  Velbergk,  advising  him  to  remain  in  the  Catholic  Commu- 
nion.  Although  he  professed  to  follow  your  rule  of  faith,  he 
could  not  calm  his  conscience,  and  in  his  writings,  he  often  be- 
trays his  cause.  :> 

CEcoLAMPADius. — Sclneccrus  tells  us  that  OEcolampadius  be- 
ing dangerously  ill,  thus  prayed: — ^'  O  Jesus  Christ,  let  me  know 
the  truthl  Let  me  know  whether /have  taught  the  true  doctrine 
on  your  Holy  Supper."  (Seln.  part  l.com.  in  Ps.  fol.  215.) 
You  see.  Sir,  that  your  rule  of  faith  could  not  produce  it,  and 
the  unfortunate  CEcolampadius  taught,  what  he  was  not  sure  of, 
and  in  moments  of  danger,  the  truth  came  out.  What  faith 
could  he  have,  being  guided  by  a  flillible  rule!  Now  Dr.  Brown- 
lee, I  must  be  candid,  you  are  in  the  same  case.  You  are  learn- 
ed enough  to  know  that  divine  faith  must  be  infallible,  that  your 
fallible  rule  cannot  give  it;  and  that  your  faith  is  human  faiths 
the  same  as  any  other  human  opinion. 

I  have  yet  a  great  stock  in  my  memorandum,  but  I  am  afraid 
that  my  communication  will  not  be  inserted  if  it  be  too  long, 
Farewell,  Dr.  Brownlee — 1  leave  you  in  good  hands,  and  as  to 
me,  whether  you  believe  me  or  not,  /  profess  to  be, 
Respectfully,  your  affectionate, 

FELIX  VARELA. 


Reply  of  Rev.  Hr.  Brownlee, 

TO  DR.  VARELA. 
Rev.  sir: — The  unique  letter  which  you  did  me  the  honour  of 
addressing  to  me,  in  last  Saturday's  paper,  would,  to  me,  have 


2S 

been  amusing,  had  it  not  been  for  the  spirit  of  uncompromising 
DEISM, — pardon  me, — which  is  interwoven  out  and  out,  in  it! 

What  amused  me  was  the  manner  of  your  retreat  from  the  pre- 
sent discussion, — after  you  had  signed  your  pledge  to  stand  by 
your  Rev.  Brethren.  I  knew  that  my  kind-hearted  neighbour, 
Dr.  Varela,  was  an  antiquarian  and  a  classic  scholar.  And  he 
has  shown  it :  he  has  been  studying  the  antiquated  Parthian 
character.  These  ancient  worthies,  when  they  saw  the  enemy, 
would  retreat  at  full  gallop  ;  but  in  their  retreat  they  always  dis- 
charged a  shot  or  two,  with  their  bows  and  arrows.  Even  so 
friend  Varela,  Parthian  like,  retreats;  but  fires  off  an  epistle 
from  his  retreat  among  the  bushes,  before  he  gives  me  his  **fare- 
well,"  and  '^  leaves  me  in  good  hands  !" 

But,  Sir,  you  should  not  have  retreated,  you  should  have  re- 
mained firm  to  your  pledge.  It  is  true,  I  am  aware,  you  could 
not  digest  such  letters  as  the  other  two  Priests  are  placing  in 
the  Truth  Teller.  But  still  you  were  pledged  ;  and  should  not 
retreat,  even  though  you  would  sooner  have  consented  to  have 
your  hand  taken  off,  than  sign  such  letters! 

But,  it  is  painful  to  see  a  gentleman  of  your  age  and  experi- 
ence, advocating  the  leading  p:  inciple  of  Deism  !  Yes,  Dr.  Va- 
rela, Thomas  Paine  and  David  Hume  would  have  acceded  to, 
and  applauded  your  sentiments  against  the  Holy  Bible  as  being 
v^njit  and  too  imperfect  to  be  the  rule  of  faith!  I  appeal  to  the 
Christian  community  to  say,  whether  on  a  review  of  your  letter, 
it  is  not  obviously  the  spirit  of  infidelity  that  you  advocate.  I 
beg  to  give  a  brief  reply  to  your  queries. 

1st.  You  ask,  '*  Where  in  Scriptures  do  you  find  that  the 
Scriptures  are  the  only  Rule  of  Faith"?"  [I  have  already  shown 
this  in  my  two  letters.]  See  Psalms  19.  Prov.  30.  5.  6.  Isaiah 
8.  19.  20.     2d  Tim.  3.  16.  17.     Rev.  22.  18.  19.  &c. 

2nd.  "From  what  scriptures,  were  the  scriptures  believed, 
when  they  were  first  written?"  I  reply, — can  these  be  the  words 
of  a  professed  christian?  Do  you  then  not  know  how  to  reason 
with  a  deist  in  defence  of  the  Holy  Bible?  Do  vou  not  knojy 
that  the  Scriptures  were  believed  by  the  people  of  God,  on  the 
evidence  which  the  inspired  prophet  or  apostle  produced,  to  es- 
tablish his  commission  from  heaven'?  His  miracles  and  predic- 
tions showed  that  God  sent  him;  and  then,  his  words  and  his 
writings  were  believed  to  be  from  God.  Do  you  not  know  that 
the  Scriptures  are  believed  on  account  of  their  externa/ evidence 
as  well  as  their  internal  evidence'?  I  am  aware  of  the  radical 
error  under  which  you,  and  all  the  Catholic  Priests  labour;  it  is 
this, — you  believe  that  the  Bible  has  no  evidence  and  no  authori- 
ty y  but  Just  that  which  the  Pope  and  the  Bomish  Church  choose 
to  give  it!     You  will  not  allow  even  God  himself  to  speak  to  ua, 


23 

and  all  men,  but  jast  as  the  Pope  pleases.  This  is  the  fundamen- 
tal error  of  the  Romish  Church  !  But  the  world  is  now  too  en- 
lightened to  submit  to  this  ! 

3d.  "  Not  the  scriptures  but  its  interpretation  form  the  diffef- 
ent  creeds  of  the  different  Protestants,  &,c. — To  all  this  I  reply 
that  God  speaks  in  the  scriptures  plainly  and  clearly ;  and  true 
christians  in  the  Church  of  God,  take  up  this  meaning  without 
difficulty.  And  we  prove  our  creed  amply  from  the  texts  of 
Scripture.  Look  into  the  confessions  and  creeds  of  the  true 
Church  of  Christ,  and  you  will  see  this  infallibly :  for  you  can- 
not mistake  it. 

4th.  "If  the  Scriptures  be  so  plain,  why  do  you  Protestants 
explain  them?  Why  do  you  preach?  &.c."  In  reply  I  ask  you, 
Do  you  or  do  you  not  believe  that  the  spirit  of  God  inspired  men 
to  write  the  Scripture'?  If  you  do  not,  you  are  a  Deist! — If  you 
dOj — then  you  admit  that  God  the  Spirit,  speaks  to  us  in  the 
Scriptures.  And  here,  then,  you  charge  the  Holy  One,  with 
speaking  obscurely  and  not  plainly,  and  in  a  manner  not  to  be 
understood  by  the  people!  I  assure  you,  sir,  this  doctrine  of  yours 
would  be  applauded  by  Owen  and  Fanny  Wright,  in  the  Hall  of 
Science!  I  retort  on  you,  your  own  words  my  friend  Varela, 
*<Take  care!"  "  Look  out!"  I  assure  you  that  men  have  been 
burnt  at  an  auto  da  fe,  in  Spain,  for  "  errors,"  infinitely  less 
than  this.  "  Look  out"  for  a  visit  from  the  "  Holy  farhers  of 
the  Inquisition."  But,  there  is  one  comfort,  my  friend,  and  I 
congratulate  you  we  never  will  permit  them  to  burn  you,  in  this 
happy  land! 

5th.  "The  rule  of  your  faith  is,  that  the  Scriptures  must  be  un- 
derstood and  observed  according  to  private  judgment;  and  not 
precisely  according  to  the  judgment  of  the  Church,  «^c."  I  reply, 
that  it  is  a  mortifying  thing  to  see  a  learned  Priest  playing  off  such 
palpable  proofs  of  his  being  utterly  unacquainted  with  the  opi- 
nions and  dogmas  of  Protestants.— I  humbly  exhort  you  to  remem- 
ber the  valuable  proverb,  that  before  we  speak,  or  write  on  a  sub- 
ject, wc  should  know  something  about  it!  You  ought  to  know  1st, 
that  what  you  state  here  is  not  true. — The  Protestant  Churches 
do  not  so  understand  the  Scriptures.  2d.  By  the  Reformation, 
we  regained  from  ghostly  tyranny,  the  rights  of  conscience  and 
private  judgment.  We  think  and  judge  for  ourselves;  we  do  it  not 
by  proxy.  But  you  carry  the  consciences  and  judgments  of  your 
flock  in  your  pocket;  and  will  leave  them  in  purgatory,  if  they 
dare  to  read  the  Bible'and  think  for  themselves ! — 3d.  you  ought 
to  know  that  not  private  individuals,  but  the  Pastors  and  Elders 
in  the  Church  met  in  Councils,  to  draw  up  and  publish  our  creeds 
and  confessions ;  and  bring  copious  proofs  of  them  from  the 
Scriptures.     Thus  the  Spirit  of  God  speaks  to  us  in  the  scrip- 


24 

tures;  and  we  declare,  as  a  Church,  how  we  understand  God*« 
true,  plain,  and  clear  word. 

Your  Church  has  been  long  guilty  of  perverting  a  text  of  St. 
Peter,  in  2  epistle,  ch.  1.  20.  21.— St.  Peter  says,  "No  prophe- 
cy of  the  Scripture  is  of  any  private  interpretation,  &,c."  He  is 
speaking  of  '*  prophecy,"  and  of  that  alone.  But  your  sect  has 
for  ever  committed  this  singular  blunder,  and  read  it  thus, — "No 
Scripture  is  of  any  private  interpretation."  I  call  on  you  as  an 
honest  man,  to  put  an  end  to  this  scandelous  imposition  so  long 
practiced  upon  the  Roman  Catholic  laymen.  If  you  do  not,  let 
the  public  judge  between  us. 

6th.  "  AVhy  do  your  Reformers  differ  nbout  "  this  is  my  body? 
££fc."  1  have  replied  to  this  and  shown  your  radical  error,  in 
this  mode  of  your  conducting  an  argument,  in  my  second  letter. 
Dr.  Varela,  you  surely,  know  that  an  "infallible  Rule  and 
Judge,"  do  not  secure  the  infallibility  of  all  men  who  use  it"? 
Are  you  infallible,  because  the  Pope  is  your  head  and  keeps 
your  conscience'?  Are  all  the  Catholics  in  New  York  infalliblet 
because  the  Pope  and  the  Holy  Mother  are  infallible'?  It  would 
be  a  glorious  time  for  New-York,  if  they  were  !  'Take  care  V 
*Look  out !'  For  your  own  infallihle  rule  does  not  keep  out  di- 
visions, errors  and  heresies  from  "  Holy  Mother"  herself! 

7th.  You  assail  us  about  the  various  and  different  translations 
of  the  Bible  in  Protestant  countries. — [See  Dr.  Vs.  seventh 
query.]  I  reply  that  each  nation  has  its  own  tongue  and  idiom; 
and  hence  there  may  be  shades  of  difference  in  the  expression. 
But  not  one  doctrine, — not  one  idea  is  altered,  or  perverted  by 
any  of  all  these  translations.  Besides,  Dr.  Varela,  you  ought  to 
know  that  the  Hebrew  and  the  Greek  are  the  infallible  standards 
and  the  last  resort  in  all  disputed  translations.  But,  sir,  it  is 
amazing  to  hear  you  attack  our  translations  ;  or  any  of  your 
Church — when  the  "  infallible  Council  of  Trent,"  has  sanction- 
ed the  Latin  Vulgate  as  the  only  one  to  be  used,  and  every  He- 
brew and  Greek  scholar  in  Christendom  knows  that  the  Vulgate 
is  the  very  worst  of  thk  worst  translations  \  And  no  scholar 
will  risk  his  reputation  in  denying  this! 

8th.  Here  you  expatiate,  as  Ubual,  on  the  difi^erences  and  di- 
visions of  the  Protestants.  I  have  replied  twice  to  this  already. 
This  is  the  stereotype  declamation  of  the  Priests,  in  "Holy  Mo- 
ther." Without  this  morsel,  you  could  not  get  along.  Doctor 
Power  has  preached  his  sermon  on  this,  a  thousand  and  one 
times'.  And  he  gave  a  neu'  edition  of  it,  in  ei-er?/ speech  in  our 
Protestant  Association,  when  he  honored  us  with  his  presence. 
But,  I  repeat  it,  this  comes  with  the  worst  grace  from  a  Roman  Ca- 
tholic. For  every  one  error  and  division  among  Protestants,  there 


25 

are  ten  errors,  divisions,  and  heresies,  in  the  very  bosom  of  unity 
herself.  I  mean  in  the  Romish  Church,  and  you  know  it.  I  ask 
you,  sir,  are  you  a  Janscnist?  Or  a  Jesuit'?  A  Dominican?  Or 
a  Franciscan?  Is  your  infallible  Rule  in  the  Pope'?  Or  is  it  in 
a  Councin  Or  in  the  Pope  and  Council?  Or  in  the  "Holy 
Church?"  Here  is  a  fatal  division  oi  four  sects,  within  your 
Church,  touching  this  first  essential  doctrine  !  To  which  of  all 
these  sects  do  you  belong?  And  finally,  if  you  have  got  infal- 
libility, somewhere,  why  does  it  not  come  out  and  settle  these 
brawls  and  heresies  in  your  "  Holy,  one,  undivided  church?" 

9th.  '^Can  the  law  be  the  judge?  Who  applies  it?  Are 
the  Scriptures  the  law?  Can  they  be  the  judge?"  I  reply, 
again,  the  Scriptures  are  the  law  and  rule ;  and  tlie  Holy  Ghost, 
speaking  to  us  in  them,  is  the  Judge.  Sit  down  at  Christ's  feet 
Dr.  Varela,  and  listen,  and  receive  the  law  and  the  rule.  But, 
if  you  did  so, — what  a  havoc  of  destruction,  you  must  then  make 
of  your  old  oral  traditions  and  rotten  councils;  and  Pope  and 
Cardinals,  and  all  must  go  !  Afid  even  '^  the  idols  must  be 
thrown  to  the  moles  and  the  bats  !"  Alas  !  unassisted  human 
nature  can  never  make  such  a  sacrifice. 

10th.  "  Private  spirit  is  fallible,  can  it  be  the  judge  of  an  in- 
fallible faith?"  I  reply,  that  you  misrepresent  us  ;  The  Holy 
Spirit  speaks  to  us  infallibly  true.  And  we  can  take  up  his  holy 
mind  and  will,  more  7^eadily,  and  easily,  than  your  Priests  can 
take  up  the  mind  and  will  of  the  infallible  and  divided  Popes  or 
Councils!!  I  ask  you  a  question  here  ; — How  many  fallibles 
in  a  Pope  and  Council  will  go  to  make  up  one  infallible  ? — 
Solve  this  problem,  before  the  Christian  public.  If  you  can, 
in  your  own  behalf,  you  will  work  a  miracle. 

1 1th.  This  query  of  yours  is  unintelligible  ; — perhaps  it  is  the 
printer's  fault.  I  can  only  say  here,  that  no  Protestant  affirms 
that  ^^  private  spirif  is  the  rule  of  faith.  We  exercise  the  right 
of  private  judgment  in  reading  God's  word. 

12th.  This  has  been  answered  again  and  again  by  me.  See 
my  letters. 

13th.  I  reply,  it  is  easy  to  find  out  who  is  a  heretic.  For 
instance,  the  Bible  says, — that  he  is  a  heretic  who  makes  a  man, 
St.  Peter,  for  instance,  the  foundation  of  the  Church,  instead  of 
Christ !  He  is  a  heretic  who  makes  a  man  the  head  of  the  Church 
Christ !  He  is  a  heretic  who  bows  down  to  stocks  and  stones, 
and  prays  to  dead  men  and  women  !  He  is  a  heretic  who  be- 
lieves that  purgatory,  and  not  Christ's  blood,  purges  away  our 
sins  !  He  is  a  heretic  who  makes  a  God,  prays  to  him, — and  then 
EATS  HIM  UP  !  The  Bible  tells  us  this  plainly  ;  and  then,  by  wit- 
nesses we  can  prove  that  a  man  holds  to  and  believes  these  ex- 

4 


S6 

travagancies  ;  and  then  we  can,  in  a  Church  Court,  convict  him, 
as  readily  as  we  do  a  murderer,  in  a  criminal  court.  I  hope  I 
have  fairly  answered  yon. 

14th.  "  Can  any  man  learn  by  himself,  from  the  Scriptures 
every  essential  point  of  faith,  without  any  fear  of  error*?"  1  an- 
swer, yes  ;  he  can  learn,  without  error,  all  that  Christ  has  re- 
vealed, for  our  salvation.  But  he  can  find  none  of  all  the  essen- 
tial doctrines  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  For  the  Bible 
never  contained  them,  and  Christ  never  taught  them.  Finally, 
I  reply  in  the  words  of  St.  Paul.  See  2  Tim.  iii.  16.  "All  Scrip- 
ture is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is  profitable  for  doctrine, 
&'€,,  and  that  the  man  of  God  way  he  perfect,  thoroughly  fur- 
nished to  all  good  works. ^^ 

But  I  must  close.  Mr.  Bourne  claims  you  as  his  opponent; 
and  he  will  pay  his  respects  to  what  I  have  been  compelled  to 
omit.  Farewell,  Dr.  Varela,  "I  leave  you  in  good  hands."  May 
God  bless  you,  and  save  you  by  his  grace. 

Yours  very  truly  and  respectfully, 

W.  C.  BROWNLEE. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Varela. 


TO  DRS.  POWER  &  LEVINS. 

ON  THE  RULE  OF  FAITH. 

You  begin  your  letter,  gentlemen,  with  an  expression  of  amaze- 
ment at  my  '* chivalrous"  daring  in  "challenging  Prelate  and 
Priest,"  to  this  discussion.  The  very  chivalry  of  "  the  Lion- 
hearted  Richard"  himself,  excites  less  amazement  than  this  ven- 
turous daring  of  mine  !  Challenge  four  men  led  and  shielded 
by  "infallibility"  itself!  And  all  of  them,  moreover,  sharing  in 
the  blessings  of  the  same  "infallibility!"  But  in  the  hurry  of 
writing,  you  forget  the  feelings  of  a  Protestant.  In  his  estima- 
tion, "  prelate  and  priest"  are  creatures  of  mere  human  fiction, — 
rather  harmless  than  otherwise,  among  "  lion-hearted"  republi- 
cans. And  the  ghostly  claims  of  "  infallibles,"  sound  in  his  ears, 
like  the  "vapid"  bravadoes  of  the  antiquated  heroes  of  the  Cas- 
tle of  Otranto. 

The  fact  is,  and  you  know  it,  gentlemen.  I  v/as  goaded  and 
driven  into  this  controversy  by  your  own  partizans.  And,  there- 
fore, my  claims  are  too  humble,  in  this  matter,  to  be  decorated 
with  the  honours  of  "chivalry."  I  return  them  with  all  humili- 
ty to  their  rightful  owners. 

Your  letter  is  written,  gentlemen,  in  a  hurried  manner.  And 
I  have  reason  to  complain  of  it :  for  you  have  fairly  mistaken  my 
meaning  as  to  "  the  settling^''  the  point  of  the  Rule  and  Judge  of 


truth.  The  public  who  read  our  letters  know,  that  I  simply  al- 
ledged  that  there  could  be  no  use  in  stopping  at  the  threshold  of 
the  debate,  until  we, — that  is,  you  and  I, — Catholic  and  Protes- 
tant, should  co?ne  together  on  this  point.  For  the  truth  is,  we 
never  can  "settle  it,"  in  this  sense.  This  creates  the  abyss  which 
lies  between  us.  Of  course,  if  we  stopt  here,  until  we  should 
thus  settle  the  matter,  we  should  be  constrained  to  stop  for  ever 
here.  Hence  my  fear  was,  that  a  plea  might  be  thence  set  up, 
to  sound  a  retreat,  and  retire  with  the  honours  of  war.  I  state  it 
distinctly,  that  my  only  object,  in  those  remarks,  was  to  make  sure 
the  continuance  of  our  discussion. 

Gentlemen,  I  never  said,  or  even  hinted  that  the  question 
touching  "  the  RuW''  was  of  small  moment.  I  deem  it  of  infinite 
importance.  I  have  not  declined  tiie  discussion  of  it.  Nay, 
gentlemen,  pardon  me,  I  have  discussed  it, — though  briefly,  in 
my  first  letter :  yes,  and  settled  it  too,  in  the  only  sense,  so  far 
as  I  can  see,  in  which  we  can  settle  it.  That  is,  I  have  distinctly 
laid  down  the  Protestant  Rule,  and  shown  out  of  the  Holy  Bible, 
that  it  is  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  to  us  in  the  written  word. 
And  I  have  also  stated,  fairly,  your  Rule,  namely, — the  scrip- 
tures, the  apocrypha,  and  oral  traditions,  explained  by  a  living, 
infallible  oracle.  This  was,  as  I  did  conceive,  going  as  far  as 
we  ought  to  go  at  the  entrance  of  our  discussion.  I  was  willing 
to  take  it  up  in  its  proper  place  if  you  pleased.  And,  gentle- 
men, /did  really  think  that  you  would,  yourselves,  have  prefer- 
red the  discussion  of  it,  after  we  had  discussed  the  subject  of 
the  "  infallible  church."  It  was  natural,  first  to  seek  out  this 
said  "  infaUihle  Church,'^  and,  then,  to  seek  out  in  her,  this  said 
'^infallible  Rule  and  Judge.''  And,  gentlemen,  are  you  not 
aware  that  this  is  the  order,  which  was  pursued  by  year  **  infal- 
lible Council  of  Trent  ?"     [See  Sess.  3  and  4.] 

But  /  am  not  tenacious  :  /  yield  to  courtesy  •  qua  via  ducit 
sequar.  Since  you  insist  on  it',  that  the  Rule  si^all  be  discussed 
first,  even  so  be  it :  only  let  none  of  us  propose  a  retreat. 

The  point  fairly  at  issue  between  the  ^^rotestant  and  Roman 
Catholic  churches  on  the  Rule  of  Fait<i  and  Judge  of  Contro- 
versy, is  this  '.—Both  of  us,  in  the  fir^t  place,  admit  that  there  is 
an  infallible  rule  of  faith,  established  by  Christ,  to  guide  us  in 
matters  of  faith,  and  decisions  o'  controversy  in  religion.  But, 
in  the  second  place,  we  diff'er  coto  ccelo,  as  to  what  that  Rule  is. 

First '.—ThQ  Protestant  Church  declares  that  the  only  Rule 
of  faith  and  Judge  of  concroversy,  is  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking 
to  us  in  the  written  word  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments ;  and 
teaching  us  every  thing  necessary  to  be  known  and  believed,  in 
order  to  our  glorifying  God  and  enjoying  him  forever. 


28 

Seco7id  : — The  Roman  Catholic  Church  declares,  that  the 
only  Rule  is  the  Scriptures  in  the  old  Latin  or  Vulgate  transla- 
tion, only : — [not  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost,] 
together  with  the  books  of  Apocrypha ;  and  oral  traditions  of 
the  fathers  ;  and  all  these  are  to  be  '^  infallibly"  explained  by  a 
living,  speaking,  ''  infallible  oracle  and  Judge  :"  who  is,  1st,  ac- 
cording to  one  sect  in  Holy  Mother  Church,  said  to  be  the 
Fope:  2d,  by  another  sect,  in  her,  a  council:  3d,  by  another 
sect  in  her,  the  pope  and  council:  4th,  by  another  sect  in  her^ 
the  holy  mother  church, — meaning  the  pope  and  his  clergy. 
Such  is  the  singular  discordance  of  sentiments,  in  the  very  bo- 
som of  '^  unity  and  infallibility^^  touching  this  vitally  essential 
point,  namely  "  the  infallible  Judge."  And  this,  by  the  way,  ex- 
plains the  phenomena,  in  the  mode  of  pursuing  their  argument, 
both  by  my  opponents  and  by  Mr.  Hughes  of  Philadelphia.  They 
make  a  vapouring  demonstration,  and  a  threatening  air  of  as- 
sault upon  <^the  poor  offending  Bible,"  the  Protestant's  Rule, 
in  order  to  hide  the  weakness  of  their  own  system.  This  is  the 
open  flank  of  our  assailants.  They  labour  to  raise  a  cloud  of 
smoke  and  dust,  around  the  truth,  and  then  to  escape  in  the  dark. 

Here  we  have,  at  one  view,  the  two  great  dividing  sentiments. 
Protestants,  with  humble  veneration,  receive  the  Holy  Ghost 
speaking  in  the  written  word,  as  their  only  Rule  and  Judge ;  and 
they  know,  and  are  sure,  that  he  speaks  to  them  as  plainly,  and 
intelligibly,  as  a  beloved  father  does,  in  a  letter  to  his  dear  child, 
— choosing  to  express  his  mind  and  will  in  the  plainest  and  sim- 
plest terms.  On  the  contrary,  the  Roman  Catholic  church's 
Rule  is  the  Pope,  or  council,  or  both,  or  Holy  Mother.  They 
are  not  agreed  here.  But  they  are  agreed  in  this,  that  it  shall 
not  be  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  the  scriptures  :  and  that  he 
shall  have  a  rival,  and  an  opponent  in  his  own  house.  And  now, 
let  the  Christia^.  public  decide  whether  we  as  rational  beings, 
shall  listen  to  God  our  Maker,  speaking  to  us  ;  or  to  an  "  infalli- 
ble Judge,"  composed  of  one  or  more  fallible  human  beings! 
And  these,  moreover;  n^^t  very  holy,  or  very  virtuous  men  :  Nay 
they  are  men  of  the  most  presumptuous  arrogance  and  pontifi- 
cal pridel  Did  men  reason,  and  draw  their  information  from  the 
pure  fountains  of  truth,  and  h^t  believe,  simply,  by  proxy,  this 
controversy  might  be  settled  in  &  few  minutes.  Let  us  examine 
each  of  these,  in  their  order. — 

1  The  Protestant  Rule  and  Judge. — Suppose  I  say  to  Dr. 
Power,  here  is  a  point  to  be  settled;"  who  shall  tell  us  what  this 
Rule  is'?  To  whom  shall  we  go'?"  Sball  i  go  with  you  to 
your  "infallible  Rulef  Or  will  you  go  with  me  to  the  holy 
scriptures,  and  hear  the  spirit  of  God  speaking  infallibly  to  us  9 


29 

We  cannot  go  to  your  infallible  Rule.^^  This  is  the  very  subject 
of  inquiry;  you  have  not  yet  found  this  infallible  rule;  this  is  the 
point  in  debate.  Wc  can  go  to  the  holy  scripture;  for  you  do  posi- 
tively admit  them  to  be  authentic  and  inspired.  If  you  do  not, 
yon  are  Deists.  I  repeat  it  gentlemen,  if  you  question  the  divine 
inspiration  of  the  Bible,  you  are  Deists  !  If  you  do  question  it 
as  such,  and  place  yourselves  by  Paine  and  Hume,  then  /  am 
prepared  to  meet  you  with  arguments, on  the  external  and  internal 
evidence  of  their  inspiration.  This,  however,  would  be  a  shifting 
of  the  ground.  But  if  you  do  admit  their  divine  inspiration  as  the 
Council  of  Trent  does  —then,  here  we  have  found  the  infallible 
Rule.  For  the  same  evidence  which  establishes  their  divine  in- 
spiration, does  also  establish  the  fact  of  their  infallibility,  God 
speaking  to  to  us,  speaks  infallibly  the  truth.  Now  we  have  first, 
only  to  open  their  pages  and  listen  with  profound  reverence,  to 
God  speaking  to  us.  Psalm  19.  Here  the  law  of  God  is  declared 
to  be  "  perfect;"  it  is  "  true;"  it  is  "  right;"  it  is  '^pure."  Isaiah 
viii.  19  20.  ^'  Should  not  a  people  seek  unto  their  God  ?  for  the 
living  unto  the  dead  '?  To  the  law  and  to  the  testimony,  if  they 
speak  not  according  to  this  word,  it  is  because  there  is  no  light 
in  them." — Here  those  are  reproved  as  going  away  from  God, 
even  going  '^  to  the  dead,"  on  behalf  of  the  living,  who  go  to 
any  human  bar  or  judge,  for  the  rule  of  truth.  Again,  Prov. 
XXX.  G.  "  Add  thou  not  unto  his  words,  lest  he  reprove  thee,  and 
thou  be  found  a  liar  /"  2  Tim.  iii.  IG.  "  All  Scripture  is  given 
by  inspiration  of  God  and  is  profitable,  &c.  that  the  man  of  God 
may  be  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto  all  good  works.^''  Here 
"  the  perfect"  word  of  the  Lord  makes  the  man  of  God  perfect, 
and  thoroughly  furnished  to  all  good  works.  No  language  can 
more  plainly  declare  this  Rule  and  Judge  injallible.  And,  final- 
ly, read  in  Rev.  xxii.  18,  19.  the  tremendous  maledictions  of  Al- 
mighty God,  on  all  those  who  "  add  to,^^  and  who  "  take  away 
from''''  God's  written  word. 

Here,  then,  we  have  the  mind  and  will  of  God  most  plainly 
spoken  :  obscurity  and  weakness,  and  ineflicacy,  are  not  in  the 
word  of  God.  Who  will  challenge  the  Almighty  and  say  to  him, 
thou  speakest  obscurely,  and  weakly,  and  inefficiently'?  Who 
will  venture  on  such  blasphemy  before  the  Christian  public  '?  If 
you  think  so,  say  it.  We  challenge  you  to  come  out  against  the 
Bible  :  call  it  imperfect :  call  it  a  failure.  Set  up  the  Pope  against 
God.  Let  us  have  no  *^  cavils,"  no  ^*  subterfuges."  Bring  out 
your  accusations  against  the  Holy  Spirit.  Tell  the  public  that 
the  Pope  and  his  clergy,  or  Holy  Mother  alone,  it  is,  and  not 
God's  blessed  word,  that  "converts,"  that  makes  us  ^'perfect," 
that  furnishes  us  thoroughly  to  all  good  works  !    I  know  that  you 


30 

say  this  in  your  books :  this  is  the  very  basis  of  your  argument 
when  you  go  to  establish  your  living  infallible  Judge  ! — We  have 
another  argument. 

2cl.  The  Holy  Scriptures  are  God's  law ;  and  our  Lord's  last 
will  and  testament :  (Kaine  Diatheke.)  Now,  what  shall  be  done 
to  a  man  who  forges  a  new  law,  and  foists  it  into  the  code  ?  What 
shall  be  done  to  the  man  who  forges,  or  adds  to,  or  alters  a  man's 
last  will  and  testament,  to  promote  his  own  gain^  What  ^^  sorer 
punishment,^^  gentlemen,  awaits  the  man,  council,  or  pope,  who 
with  fearful  daring,  under  the  very  eye  of  the  Almighty,  adds  to, 
forges,  and  alters  God's  law;  and  our  Lord's  last  will  and  testa- 
ment?    I  appeal  to  the  Christian  public,  on  this  point. 

3d.  I  shall,  in  argument,  lay  before  you,  and  the  community, 
the  following  chain  of  reasons  and  maxims.  God  is  the  only 
lord  of  the  conscience.  Will  any  man  deny  this,  and  put  his  con- 
science in  the  keeping  of  Pope  or  Priest,  who  pledges  himself, 
in  a  manner  similar  to  the  case  of  the  Duke  of  Brunswick  9 — 
The  Priests  were,  by  a  solemn  bargain,  "  to  be  damned  in  the 
old  Duke's  stead,  if  he  should  happen  to  be  damned  for  becoming 
a  Roman  Catholic .'"  Again,  God  alone  can  dictate  to  the  con- 
science, and  prescribe  our  creed  and  true  form  of  worship.  If 
the  proudest  Pope  who  ever  set  foot  on  neck  of  King  or  Em- 
peror, should  rise  up  and  dictate  these,  he  would  be  that  man  of 
sin,  "  sitting  in  the  temple  of  God"  doing  God's  work,  by  a  shock- 
ing usurpation  I  Besides,  God  only  can  make  known  his  will. 
He  employed  rational  instruments  to  deliver  his  messages.  God 
never  required  belief  without  evidence.  He  always  vouchsafed 
sufficient  evidence,  when  he  did  send  a  prophet  or  apostle  :  that 
evidence  was  exhibited  by  miracles,  prophecies,  and  tongues. — 
When  any  presented  claims  to  inspiration,  or  to  give  an  infallible 
rule,  the  Church,  by  her  Lord's  command,  required  the  necessary 
evidence.  Try  the  spirits,  whether  they  be  of  God,  The  Church 
still,  must  have  recourse  to  the  same  mode  of  trying  those  who 
pretend  to  divine  claims.  If  we  believe  without  evidence,  we 
yield  ourselves  a  prey  to  imposture.  If  any  man  or  society  of 
men,  now  claims  to  be  infallible,  then  they  have,  from  God,  the 
usual  evidence,  of  miracles,  prophecy,  and  tongues.  If  they 
want  these,  they  are  knaves  and  impostors,  and  servants  of  the 
Devil!  "Holy  Mother"  has  actually  set  up  these  claims:  she 
deliberately  says  that  God  speaking  in  the  Scriptures  neither  is 
nor  can  be  the  infallible  rule  :  but  she  herself  is  it.  This  claim 
she  sets  up,  without  producing  any  of  the  necessary  evidence  ; 
hence,  if  there  be  truth  in  the  Bible,  she  does  act  the  knave  and 
impostor !  And,  of  course,  you  know  whence  she  gets  her  com- 
mission to  do  so. 


31 

I  shall  devote  the  rest  of  this  letter  to  examine  your  invective 
against  the  infallible  Rule  of  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  the  in- 
spired ivritings.  Every  error  and  heresy  has  its  weak  side.  Your 
reasoning  betrays  this  palpably.  The  radical  error,  frcntlcmen, 
inyour  argument  is  this  :  you  mistake  the  nature  of  the  evidence 
by  which  this  point  is  to  be  established.  You  say  the  Bible  can- 
not prove  its  own  authenticity  :  and  therefore  it  cannot  be  the 
Rule  of  Faith.  This  is  a  complete  instance  of  that  crafty  logic, 
called  shifting  the  question,  when  it  cannot  he  met !  The  force 
of  your  argument  is  this — because  a  thing  does  not  perform  that, 
ivhich  it  was  not  designed  to  do,  therefore,  it  is  not  fit  for  the  thing 
for  which  God  made  it !  No  book  proves  its  own  authenticity  ; 
we  seek  not  on  the  pages  of  the  Bible  for  the  proof  of  its  authen- 
ticity. Internal  evidence,  gentlemen,  you  ought  to  know,  is  not 
external  evidence.  We  prove  the  Bible's  authenticity  by  the 
evidence  of  antiquity.  The  Jews  give  their  testimony  to  the  He- 
brew Bible's  authenticity;  the  primitive  Christians  of  the  fVal- 
denses  and  Mhigenses,  who  have  an  unbroken  succession  of  pas- 
tors from  the  Apostolic  times,  give  their  testimony  to  it,  by  the 
tradition  of  the  apostolic  evidence  :  the  many  tribes  of  heretics 
and  schismatics  do  give  their  historical  testimony  to  the  genuine 
and  authentic  books  of  the  Bible  ;  the  lloman  Catholic  Church 
gives  its  testimony  to  it  historically.  Thus  friends  and  foes  bear 
their  historical  testimony.  Then,  we  moreover,  have  the  evidence 
of  miracles  testified  to,  the  evidence  of  prophecy  in  these  books 
fulfilled  and  now  fulfilling.  Thus,  we  prove  the  authenticity  of 
the  Scriptures  by  external  evidence;  and,  finally,  by  internal  evi- 
dence. [See  Home's  Introduction,  vol.  1.  and  all  the  works  on 
the  inspired  Canon  of  Scripture.] 

And  this  evidence  being  complete, — the  perfect  evidence  of 
the  inspiration  of  the  Bible,  is  the  perfect  evidence  of  its  being 
the  only  infallible  Rule  of  Faith. 

I  pray  you,  gentlemen,  try  your  objections  against  our  rule, 
with  a  Deist,  and  you  will  see  your  radical  mistake.  A  Deist, 
says — ^*  Dr.  Power,  I  am  glad  to  see  your  arguments  against  these 
Heretics'  Bible  Rule:  I  hope  that,  as  a  man  of  sense,  you  will 
just  follow  out  your  own  argument.  Tiie  Bible,  you  say,  cannot 
prove  its  own  authenticity  ;  therefore,  it  is  not  the  tvord  of  God; 
it  is  not  inspired!  Nay,  Dr.  Power,  the  Bible  does  not  prove 
the  existence  of  God  !  Therefore  it  is  defective,  it  is  not  inspir- 
ed !^^  You  would  say. — "Sir,  I  prove  the  existence  of  God 
against  you  and  Atheists,  from  the  works  of  nature,  and,  sir,  the 
Bible  assumes  this  that  there  is  a  God:  and  it  is  he  wlio  speaks 
in  it  to  us."  Just  so ;  in  reasoning  against  a  Deist,  you  must 
prove  the  authenticity  of  the  Bible,  7iot  from  its  own  page ;  for 


32 

he  does  not  believe  it.  You  must  prove  it  as  T  have  said  above, 
from  other  arguments :  and  thus,  in  opposing  a  Deist,  you  anni- 
hilate your  own  argument  against  our  Rule  !  This  the  public 
will  distinctly  see. 

Again  :  you  object  that  the  *'  Bible  cannot  be  the  Rule,"  be- 
cause bad  men  and  Heretics  sought  shelter  under  it,  and  made  a 
bad  use  of  it.  Profound  literature  !  Infallible  logic  !  The  abuse 
of  a  thing  condemns  it,  then  !  Hence,  as  medicine  and  food 
have  been  abused,  it  is  wicked  to  use  them  for  the  end  for  which 
God  made  them!  Geology  has  been  abused  by  infidels,  Mr. Le- 
vins, therefore  this  same  evidence  is  wicked  and  unfit  to  exhibit 
God's  glory.  The  gospel  itself  has  been  abused  by  Heretics  ; 
therefore  it  is  unfit  to  bring  sinners  to  Christ ;  and  came  not  from 
God! 

Again,  you  object  against  the  Bible  being  "  the  Rule,"  because 
it  has  originated  all  the  errors,  divisions,  and  schisms,  that  exist 
among  Protestants — I  hold  up  this  objection  before  the  Chris- 
tian public:  and  I  here  do  solemnly  charge  on  you,  reverend 
gentlemen,  the  crime  of  slandaring,  and  of  bearing  false 
WITNESS  against  God's  HOLY  SCRIPTURES  !  You  chargc  on  God's 
word,  the  impious  errors  and  deeds  of  sinful  men  !  The  Bible, 
gentlemen,  never  originated  one  error,  or  heresy  !  never  counte- 
nanced them  :  never  approved  them  !  On  the  contrary,  it  so- 
lemnly condemns  every  error  that  springs  up !  These  errors 
arose  from  man's  proud  contempt  of  piety,  and  their  refusal  to 
hear  and  obey  the  holy  word  of  God.  Gentlemen  ; — what  have 
you  said"?  Do  you  deny  the  Bible  to  be  God's  word?  If  not, 
then  I  repeat  it,  God  speaks  in  it.  You  must  admit  this,  or  be 
Deists  !  Now  what  have  you  affirmed  1-  The  Bible  originating 
errors!  God  himself  by  his  Spirit  speaking  to  men,  has  origin- 
ated errors  and  heresies  !  Proh  !  tempera  :  proh  !  mores  !  Let 
the  public  now  judge  of  the  nature  and  tendency  of  Romanism. 

Besides,  apply  the  argument  of  those  gentlemen  to  their  Papal 
Rule.  In  the  bosom  of  unity  itself  and  under  the  working  of 
"  the  infallible  rule"  of  the  Pope,  ten  errors,  heresies,  and  divi- 
sions, have  sprung  up  for  every  one  of  the  Protestants.  I  ap- 
peal to  the  public,  then,  whether  this  argument  of  Drs.  Power 
and  Levins,  does  not  involve  slander  and  blasphemy  !  And  I  put 
to  every  candid  man,  if  it  does  not  cut  up  by  the  roots,  all  their 
own  pretensions  to  an  '^infallible  Rule  !" 

Again,  you  object  against  "  the  Bible  Rule,"  and  say  that  if 
it  were  infallible,  as  we  alledge,  "  why  does  it  not  flash  on  the 
minds  of  alH  why  are  there  any  Deists?" — Verily,  gentlemen, 
you  take  incredible  pains  to  show  us  that  you  are  infallible  logi- 
cians !     If  this  logic  will  prop  up  his  Holiness'  throne,  the  litera- 


33 

ture  of  your  school  will  work  miracles.  I  will  thus  test  your 
objections.  A  Deist  says  to  Dr.  Power, — "  Sir, — the  gospel  of 
the  Bible,  or  the  system  which  Christ  taught  does  not  flash  on 
the  minds  of  all, — nay,  sir,  the  dictates  of  your  ijifalUblc  Rule, 
councils,  and  popes,  etc.  do  not  flash  on  the  minds  of  all ;  there 
are  Turks,  Jews,  and  Deists  ivithin  your  pale,  and  all  around 
you,  therefore  the  Gospel,  and  even  Popery  itself  is  a  fiction  /" — 
How  will  you  meet  this  logic  which  you  have  taught  the  Deists'? 
This  I  offer,  to  the  public,  as  a  specimen  of  your  logic  and  your 
matter  of  defence  and  assault  on  us.  Every  reader,  I  trust,  will 
perceive  that  the  radical  error,  pervading  your  argument,  is 
this, — the  abuse  of  a  thing  condemns  and  annihilates  it ;  and, 
finally,  every  one  of  your  arguments  furnishes  weapons  for  the 
Deist,  and  promotes  his  cause  ! 

I  conclude  by  calling  on  you  to  come  out  in  the  exposition  and 
defence  of  your  "  infallible  Rule,^^  composed  oi fallible  materials. 
"  Give  up  cavils  and  subterfuges  :"  you  have  already  too  long 
been  concealing  yourselves,  gentlemen,  in  the  smoke  and  dust 
of  Deistical  objections,  against  the  Bible.  The  public  demand 
an  answer  to  the  following  questions  : — - 

What  is,  in  sober  truth,  your  Rule  and  Jitdge?  Why  do  you 
decorate  the  Apocrypha  with  the  honours  of  inspiration,  when 
€ven  the  authors  of  these  books  never  took  it  into  their  heads  to 
claim  it ;  but  on  the  contrary  craved  pardon  of  their  readers  for 
errors  committed  by  them  9  [See  Mac.  4,  46.  ch.  9,  27,  and  2, 
Mac.  15,  3S,  cSlc]  What  evidence  can  you  produce  that  oral 
traditions  were  given  by  Christ  for  part  of  the  Rule^  Where 
can  these  traditions  be  found  9  Who  is  your  Judge  of  Contro- 
versy 9  Is  it  the  Pope?  Is  it  a  council?  Is  it  the  Pope  and 
council  9  Is  it  Holy  Mother  Church  9  What  is  it  you  mean, 
in  soberness,  by  "  Holy  Mother  Church  9"  Have  any  of  your 
Popes  been  pagan  idolaters'?  Was  Marcellinus?  Which  of 
them  heretics  ;  and  atrociously  profane?  What  was  the  highest 
number  of  Popes  you  ever  had,  in  Holy  Mother,  all  at  once? 
Was  it  three  .?  When,  three  mutually  excommunicated  each 
other,  was  not  the  link  of  succession  completely  snajjt  asunder'? 
What  evidence  have  you  to  establish  the  real,  bona  fide,  '^  infal- 
libility^^ in  which  you  all  participate  9  Being  successors  of  the 
Apostles,  as  you  aver,  your  claims  must  be  sustained  by  similar 
evidence, — or  the  enlightened  public  will  not  hesitate  to  pro- 
nounce you  impostors.  Have  you  had  no  errors,  no  divisions,  no 
schisms,  in  you,  under  the  very  eye  of  infallibility  ?  Whence  has 
it  happened, — and  this,  is  a  solemn  question, — that  infallibility 
did  not  settle  the  immaculatCj  or  non-immaculate  conception  of 
the  Virgin  Mary  ?  And  the  brawls  and  errors  mutually  charged 
No.  3.-5 


34 

on  each  other,  by  Jansenists  and  Jesuits  :  Franciscans  and  Do- 
minicans'? Can  you  tell  us  where  that  part  of  your  Rule,  viz. 
the  universal  consent  of  the  fathers,  can  possibly  be  found  ;  as  it 
is  not  on  the  pages  of  their  endless  contradictions  %  Does  not 
your  Rule  and  Judge  [being  human  beings]  take  away  liberty  of 
conscience,  and  put  it  in  the  pope  and  priest's  keeping?  And, 
finally,  does  not  your  "  infallible  liule'^  require  all  devout  Catho- 
lics, absolutely  to  believe  things  contrary  to,  and  contradicted  by, 
the  positive  evidence  of  all  their  senses?  Namely,  that  by  a  cer- 
tain sacerdotal  process,  a  wafer  is  converted  into  the  body  and 
blood,  soul  and  divinity  of  Christ ! 

Now,  "  meet  those  questions  fairly,  gentlemen,  and  honestly, 
as  logicians,  and  theologians !  Prove  your  Rule ;"  we  ask  for 
arguments,  cool,  logical,  and  theological  argument.  No  decla- 
mation— no  appeal  to  the  prejudices  and  passions  of  your  follow- 
ers." And  I  shall,  if  God  spares  me,  pay  my  respects  to  your 
Rule,  and  your  defence  of  it  in  my  next.  One  word  to  my  friends  : 
this,  I  call  only  skirmishing  ;  for  I  am  pressed  for  want  of  time. 
I  propose  to  begin  the  Controversy  with  my  learned  opponents, 
soon,  in  good  earnest. 

I  am,  gentlemen,  very  respectfully  yours,  &c. 

W.  C.  BROWNLEE. 

JVew  York,  February  ISth,  1833. 

Reply  of  Mrs.  Power  and  JLevins^ 

TO  DR.  BROWiNLEE. 

No.  2. 

Rev.  Sir — We  are  pleased  with  your  candour  and  "  humili^ 
ty,^^  in  refusing  the  intimacy  of  resemblance  to  him  of  the  Lion 
Heart ;  and,  since  you  decline  the  "  honors  of  chivalry,"  we  shall 
substitute  our  humble  aid  to  advance  you  to  the  enviable  distinc- 
tion of  a  rational  logician  and  sound  theologian. 

To  keep  the  primary  question  steadily  in  view,— to  fix  the  at- 
tention of  our  readers, — to  prevent  deflection  of  vision,  or, 
adopting  your  own  felicitous  term — squinting, — to  remove  the 
haze  caused  by  evasion,  subterfuge,  and  trick,  it  is  judicious  to 
mark  the  extent  of  progress  already  made  in  the  controversial 
strife.  If  the  advances  be  slight,  let  not  the  fault  be  attributed 
to  us.  Had  our  requests  been  honestly  met,  had  no  evasion  been 
practiced,  our  adversary,  ere,  now,  would  have  had  some  stub- 
born arguments  to  evolve.  At  the  very  onset,  Rev.  Sir,  you 
were  asked  for  your  R,ule  of  Faith,  that  a  landmark  might  be 
fixed  to  guide  us  in  the  discussion.— You  gave  it,  but  in  place  of 


35 

restricting  yourself  to  its  proof,  a  tliousand  topics  irrevelant  to 
the  subject  in  question,  were  dragged  into  view,  with  about  the 
same  gentleness  as  a  butcher  enacting  his  profession  in  the 
slaughter  house.  But,  what  was  the  nature  of  the  topics,  which 
roused  the  "speaking  of  the  spirit"  to  expressions — we  must  say 
— of  course,  uncouth,  crude,  and  vulgar  declamation"?  They 
were  of  that  kind  which  minister  aliment  to  the  bigoted  prepos- 
sessions and  dearly  fostered  prejudices  of  the  ignorant  amon^ 
the  Calvinistic  community.  This,  surely,  is  not  the  mode  com- 
mon sense,  common  honesty,  and  common  candour  would  sug- 
gest, or  the  procedure  they  would  adopt.  You  must  have  strange- 
ly calculated  on  your  artifices  of  deception,  and  formed  an  in- 
sulting estimate  of  our  capability  of  vigilance.  You  are  now 
asked,  and  asked  that  your  answer  may  be  noted,  what  logical 
relationship  had  the  endless  topics  introduced  into  your  letter, 
with  the  f7if?i  state  of  the  discussion.  If  there  be  merit  in  intre- 
pid folly  and  contempt  of  all  logical  rule,  you  have  faithfully 
earned  reward.  You  have  finely  illustrated  your  own  words, — 
'</do  not  mean  to  be  stopt  at  the  very  threshold  of  the  discus- 
sion, by  any  invitation  to  settle  the  Rule  of  Faith  and  the  Judge 
of  Controversy."  You  gave  your  Rule  of  Faith ; — you  did  not 
prove  it.  You  did  not  prove  the  divine  origin  of  the  Book  from 
which  you  take  it.  You  did  not  prove  the  canonicity  of  the 
writings  forming  this  Book,  or  whether  this  Book  contains  the 
entire  word  of  God.  These  were  the  first  steps  in  the  logical  or- 
der of  discussion.  Every  topic  introduced  not  directly  bearing 
on  these  steps  of  argument,  was  a  departure  from  the  proper  sub- 
ject. Why,  then,  was  not  this  just  and  rational  method  adopted? 
You  had  no  admission  from  us, — no  concession.  You  shall  have 
none. — You  challenged  us.  The  challenge  was  unhesitatingly 
accepted.  We  meet  you  as  logical  and  theological  disputants. 
The  resources  of  your  vituperative  nomenclature  pass  us  by  like 
the  idle  wind. — Our  purpose  is  fixed.  A  topic  of  discussion  fo- 
reign to  the  subject  will  not  be  admitted  to  serious  scrutiny, 
until  the  preceding  matter  has  been  decided.  You  must  not  ex- 
pect illogical  privileges.  Proof  and  argument.  This,  and  only 
this,  will  be  respected. 

Will  you  insinuate  ignorance  of  this  form  of  procedure?  It 
is  the  very  order  the  matter  of  our  controversy  assumes.  But, 
ignorance  cannot  be  pretended.  You  and  our  readers  are  refer- 
red to  our  last  communication.  Were  not  the  proper  heads  of 
discussion  there  adequately  and  expressly  designated  ?  They 
are  again  repeated.  Mark  the  words.  "  That  you  and  our 
readers  may  know  what  we  require,  our  demand  is  this  : — Tell  us 
how  you  know  the  Bible  to  be  the  word  of  God  ?     How  do  you 


36 
know  which  books'  were  written  by  divine  inspiration  9  Does 
the  Bible  contain  the  whole  word  of  God,  or  does  it  not '?"  Could 
the  import  of  our  words  be  mistaken  9  We  refer  to  your  last 
letter  for  your  form  of  proceeding, — and,  sainted  name  of  Paul, 
how  utterly  reckless  of  the  "form  of  sound  words;" — shade  of 
Aristotle,  how  studiously  preserved  from  the  merest  elements  of 
sound  argument, — "  barren  as  the  soil  from  Dan  to  Beersheba." 
How  unworthy  of  a  watchman  on  the  ramparts  of  the  Middle 
Dutch  Church. 

To  the  defects  of  your  letter.  Rev.  Sir,  it  is  painful  to  allude, 
and,  any  thing  but  satisfaction  is  caused,  when  you  are  assured 
it  brings  back  to  the  intellect  from  which  it  has  sprung,  nothing 
but  dishonor. — A  motley  blending  of  illogical  inference,  ludi- 
crous falsehood,  harsh  phrase,  and  insulting  invective,  to  greet 
it  in  the  language  of  literary  compliment  would  be  mockery;  to 
approach  it  in  serious  thought,  would  be  farce.  Its  positive  fea- 
tures, what  are  they  ^  A  fearless  disregard  of  the  question  at 
issue,  and  the  same  intrepid  hostility  to  truth  as  in  your  harang^ues 
at  the  Protestant  Association.  Its  negative  features?  A  want 
of  that  sobriety  of  temper  which  indicates  respect  to  a  sacred 
cause,  and  the  absence  of  that  measured  decorum  which  confers 
dignity  on  the  disputant.  There  is  the  strut  of  the  bully,  the 
gasconade  of  the  coward,  the  subterfuge  of  the  dissembler,  the 
trick  of  the  partizan,  the  pretension  of  the  sciolist,  the  petulance 
of  the  sour  Calvinist,  the  malignant  zealotry  of  the  Puritan. 
The  semblance  of  honest  bluntness  is  assumed,  but  the  gall-spi- 
rit that  foments  sectarian  passion  and  prejudice  to  festering  ex- 
citement lurks  concealed  behind  the  mask. 

You,  Rev,  Sir,  were  solicited  to  prove  your  Rule  of  Faith. 
The  first  step  in  the  order  of  correct  dependancy  is  the  divine 
character  of  the  book  from  which  it  is  assumed,  and  unless  this 
character  be  impressed  with  an  infallible  mark,  your  rule  is 
worthless — of  no  authority.  This  done,  you  were  requested  to 
prove  the  canonicity  of  the  writings  forming  the  book,  and,  then, 
you  were  asked  if  this  book  contain  the  entire  word  of  God. 
Was  this  form  of  procedure  irrational  ^  Yet,  you  unblushingly 
censure  and  denounce  it  as  a  ^'shifting  of  the  question^  But, 
if  your  last  letter  must  be  admitted  as  an  answer  to  our  legiti- 
mate queries,  by  what  ingenuity  of  phrase  shall  we  designate 
your  proofs?  Our  readers  must  rest  satisfied  with  the  heads  of 
your  arguments.  Mark  the  logical  and  theological  concatena- 
tion. "  The  infallible  Church"—^'  the  Council  of  Trent"— '^  the 
Holy  Spirit  spenking  to  us  in  the  written  word  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments" — "the  old  Latin  or  Vulgate  translation"— 
*'  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost ! ! ! "— "  Holy  Mo- 
ther Church"—"  Mr.  Hughes  of  Philadelphia"— ^' the  infallible 


37 

Judge  composed  of  one  or  more  human  beings" — "  the  Deists, 
Paine  and  Hume" — "  the  Duke  of  Brunswick  and  the  Priests 
who  were  to  be  his  substitutes  should  he  be  damned" — "  the 
highest  number  of  Popes  in  Holy  Mother" — "  the  Pope  astride 
on  the  necks  of  kings  and  emperors" — "  Jews,  Waldenses,  and 
Albigenses" — "medicine  food,  and  geology" — "the  immaculate 
or  non-immaculate  conception  of  the  Virgin  Mary" — "  Jesuits 
and  Jansenists,  Franciscans  and  Dominicans" — &.c.  &,c.  &,c. 
Then  the  inevitable  and  logical  conclusion,  therefore,  the  Bible 
is  the  word  of  God.  In  sober  verity,  the  Lion-hearted  Richard 
on  the  battle  field  of  Askalon,  was  less  redoubtable  than  the 
worthy  logician  and  preacher  in  the  Middle  Dutch  Church.  To 
prepare  for  strife  against  arguments  formidable  as  these,  will  re- 
quire a  panoply  tempered  by  no  terrestial  artist,  and  an  intrepi- 
dity and  prowess  superior  to  La  Mancha's  Knight  when  he 
couched  his  lance  against  the  windmill. 

But,  where,  the  while,  Rev.  Sir,  are  your  explanations  of  a 
very  serious  matter  inserted  in  our  last  letter.  We  have  looked 
for  them  in  vain.  This  matter  was  suggested  as  an  intelligible 
and  practical  elucidation  of  the  great  advantages  attached  to 
your  Rule  of  Faith.  It  is  a  matter  fixing  conviction  on  the  most 
superficial  understanding,  that,  the  aids,  utilities,  and  benefits 
involved  in  your  Rule  are  inappreciable  !  Where  is  the  solution 
or  explanation  of  Luther's  rejection  of  the  epistle  of  St.  James? 
Why  was  this  difficulty  shunned'?  What,  not  even  a  ^^squinV^ 
to  penetrate  the  haze  enveloping  this  mystery.  What,  is  Cal- 
vinistic  ingenuity  at  fault.  Is  it  a  matter  of  no  importance  to 
reject  the  epistle  of  St.  James?  And  yet  more,  the  epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  and  yet  more,  the  second  epistle  of  St.  Peter,  and 
farther  still,  in  the  pious  work  of  rejection,  the  second  and  third 
epistles  of  St.  John,  that  of  St.  Jude  and  the  Apocalypse.  Lu- 
ther was  no  squeamish  artist  in  the  critical  purgation  of  the  Bi- 
ble. You  admit  what  Luther  rejected.  Was  he  then,  the  sainted 
architect  of  the  holy  Reformation,  unvisited  by  the  "  speak- 
ing of  the  Holy  Spirit,"  or  was  he  ignorant  of  the  '^  Hebrew 
and  Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghosf?"  Did  we  estimate  the  '^speak- 
ing of  the  Holy  Spirit,"  by  the  fearless  havoc  of  Luther's  prun- 
ing knife,  we  should  say  he  was  first  on  the  roll  of  the  Spirit's 
favourites.  But,  Rev.  Sir,  there  is  an  important  suggestion  to 
be  made,  and  the  conclusion  involved  in  this  suggestion  is  evi- 
dent. Luther  rejected  a  portion  of  the  Sacred  Writings,  they 
are  admitted  as  divine  by  you.  Was  Luther  right; — are  you  in 
error  9  Was  Luther  in  error ; — are  you  right?  Is  Luther  damned 
for  his  rejection  of  what  you  consider  an  essential  part  of  Scrip- 
ture, for  cultivating  a  too  familiar  intimacy  with  the  Holy  Spi- 


38 

rit,  speaking  as  you  affirm,  in  the  Bible.  Evolve  this  gnarled 
difficulty.  We,  and  the  members  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church 
await  your  answer. 

Then,  again,  the  founder  of  Methodism,  the  "man  of  the  one 
book,"  John  Wesley,  why  pass  him  by  unnoticed  1-  In  our  last 
letter  we  submitted  to  you  his  confession  of  experience  in  the  Bi- 
ble. Was  he  unhonored  by  visitations  of  the  '^Holy  Spirit 
speaking  in  the  written  word  of  God,  the  Holy  Scriptures  '?" 
Was  he  unworthy  of  his  calling?  Did  he  not  labour  with  untir- 
ing zeal  and  industry  in  the  vineyard  of  the  Reformation,  and 
elucidate  the  guiding  principle  of  Protestantism  by  establishing 
a  new  sect,  and  inserting  another  name  on  the  checkered  regis- 
ter of  the  elect,  who  commune  with  the  Holy  Spirit  while  inter- 
preting the  sacred  volume  ?  Wesley,  a  Judge  in  Israel,  a  per- 
fect and  seraphic  man  in  the  estimation  of  his  followers,  and 
they  are  numerous,  admits  he  may  have  been  mistaken  in  the  in- 
terpretation of  the  Bible  ;  where,  then,  is  the  certainty  of  your 
Rule  of  Faith,  and  where  is  the  basis  for  the  great  essential  to 
eternal  salvation — divine  faith.  Again  we  demand,  why  not 
solve  the  difficulty  involved  in  his  admission  ?  Why  neglect  Dr. 
Field  ^     He  was  a  Protestant  and  a  learned  man. 

Applying  then  your  own  words  to  the  conduct  of  Luther  in 
lopping  off  from  the  Sacred  Writings  what  you  retain,  and  to  the 
admission  of  Wesley,  the  founder  of  Methodism,  that  he  might 
be  mistaken  in  ascertaining  the  right  sense  of  the  Scriptures, 
can  it  be  rationally  admitted  to  belief,  that,  "the  Holy  Spirit 
speaking  to  us  in  the  written  word  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments, teaches  us  every  thing  necessary  to  be  known  and  be- 
lieved, in  order  to  our  glorifying  God  and  enjoying  him  for 
ciJcr."  Reflect  on  this  in  the  temper  of  cool,  unbiassed  thought, 
give  to  it  the  dispassionate  appliance  of  a  sober  mind,  and  you 
will  admit  the  force  and  application  of  a  pithy  line  in  your  last 
letter  ;  it  is  more  than  oracular  in  the  precision  of  its  truth,  and 
indicates  a  familiarity  with  the  spirit  not  common  to  Biblical 
utilists, — "every  error  and  heresy  have  their  iveak  side."  Cal- 
vinism has  it,  the  entire  fabric  of  the  Protestant  religion  has  it. 
Yes,  in  their  very  foundation,  in  their  Rule  of  Faith;  'Uhe  fool- 
ish man  built  his  house  upon  the  sand  ;  and  the  rain  fell,  and  the 
floods  came,  and  the  winds  blew,  and  they  beat  upon  that  house, 
and  lifell,  and  great  was  the  fall  thereof"     Matt.  vii.  27. 

If  directed  by  the  rigorous  rules  of  logical  dependancy,  we 
might  here,  Rev.  Sir,  fitly  close  our  present  communication.  You 
have  not  answered  the  first  queries  conveyed  in  our  last  letter, 
— in  no  rational  sense  have  you  explained  the  important  sugges- 
tions expressed  in  it.     Hence,  a  fair  inference,  you  feared  the 


39 

^ffecls  of  collision.  They  will  not  bend  to  sophistry.  But  aware 
of  certain  dispositions  too  commonly  pervading  the  mass  of  the 
Calvinistic  community  which  falsely  interpret  the  disgusts  expe- 
rienced by  tutored  minds  when  ridiculous  reasonings  are  pre- 
sented to  them,  and  attribute  the  actual  contempt  of  argument, 
no  matter  how  puerile,  to  inability  to  answer,  we  shall,  briefly 
as  we  can,  notice  the  untenable  assumptions  and  illogical  infe- 
rences of  the  preacher  in  the  Middle  Dutch  Church.  Our  more 
intelligent  readers,  it  is  hoped,  will  admit  our  plea;  and,  if  it 
tend  to  suppress  effervescence  of  temper,  we  solicit  permission 
to  enter  the  tangled  labyrinth  in  the  language  of  Virgil, — 

"  Sit  numine  vestro 
Pandere  res  alta  terra  et  caligine  mersas." 

You  say, /?'5f.  Rev.  Sir,  "  the  Protestant  Church  declares  that 
the  only  Rule  of  Faith  and  Judge  of  Controversy,  is  the  Holy 
Spirit,  speaking  in  the  written  ivord  of  the  Old  and  JS'ew  Tes- 
taments, and  teaching  us  every  thing  necessary  to  be  known  and 
believed,  in  order  to  our  glorifying  God  and  enjoying  him  for 
ever."  This,  then,  is  your  Rule,  and  this  is  the  question  to  be 
proved — you  next  proceed  to  state  our  Rule  of  Faith.  It  is  not 
requiring  too  much,  to  concede  this  privilege  to  ourselves.  We, 
Rev.  Sir,  hold  the  Scripture  to  be,  indeed,  an  infallible  Rule,  and 
to  which  we  are  bound,  under  pain  of  damnation,  to  submit  our 
understandings ;  but  there  are  many  very  convincing  reasons 
which  move  us  to  believe  that  God  did  not  intend  the  Holy 
Scripture,  to  be,  of  itself  alone,  our  only  guide  in  matters  of 
faith  necessary  to  salvation,  and  that  there  is  upon  earth,  a  visi- 
ble society  of  men  appointed  by  Christ,  called  the  Church  of 
God,  to  which,  for  the  final  ending  of  all  controversies  in  R.eli- 
gion,  all  Christians  are  bound  to  adhere,  and  submit  their  judg- 
ments and  opinions,  in  points  of  Religion,  and  this  on  pain  of 
eternal  damnation. — We  also  say,  that  the  Church  regulates  her- 
self according  to  the  infallible  rule  of  God's  word,  from  which 
word,  she  judges  herself  to  be  obliged  to  rule  herself  according 
to  the  traditions,  which  the  Apostles  delivered  by  word  of  mouth 
only,  and  not  by  writing,  knowing  that  what  the  Apostles  taught 
by  word  of  mouth  is  no  less  worthy  of  credit,  than  what  they 
wrote. 

Your  Rule  and  our  Rule  are  now  in  juxta  position — it  is  our 
duty  to  examine  into  their  respective  merits  : — 1st,  In  order  to 
prove  your  Rule,  you  adduce  five  texts,  not  bearing,  in  our  opi- 
nion, on  the  point  in  debate.  We  do  not  deny  the  infallibility 
of  the  Scriptures,  but  we  do  deny  that  the  Scriptures  alone,  in- 
terpreted by  private  judgment,  are  the  rule  of  faith.  Your  argu- 
ment is — the  scriptures  are  infallible — therefore,  the  scriptures 


40 

alone,  interpreted  by  private  judgment,  are  the  only  rule  of  faith 
appointed  by  Christ.  This,  reverend  sir,  with  becoming  defer- 
ence to  your  profound  skill  in  dialectics,  is  what  the  least  train- 
ed in  logic  would  term  a  non-inference.  In  Psalm  19,  "  the  law 
of  God  is  declared  to  be  'perfect,'  '  sure,'  'right/  '  pure.'  " — 
Therefore,  every  person  is  constituted  its  interpreter  by  Christ. 
False  logic,  Doctor.  In  Isaiah  viii.  19,  20,  you  suppress  a  very 
important  part  of  the  context — "  And  when  they  shall  say  to 
you,  seek  of  Pythons  and  of  Diviners,  who  mutter  in  their  en- 
chantments :  Should  not  the  people  seek  of  their  God  for  the 
living  of  the  dead  !  To  the  law,  rather,  and  the  testimony — and 
if  they  speak  not  according  to  this  word  they  shall  not  have  the 
morning  light."  Here,  because  the  prophet  speaks  against  those 
who  asked  counsel  of  soothsayers,  about  future  events,  and  are 
referred  plainly  to  the  law  which  forbids  it.  See  Duet,  xviii.  9, 
10.  Therefore,  the  scriptures  interpreted  by  every  man's  private 
judgment  are  the  only  rule  of  faith  established  by  Christ.  Ano- 
ther profound  specimen  of  logic,  Doctor  !  In  2  Tim.  iii.  16,  St. 
Paul  says.  **  All  scripture  inspired  by  God  is  profitable,  to  teach, 
to  reprove,  to  correct,  to  instruct  in  justice,  that  the  man  of  God 
may  be  perfect,  furnished  to  every  good  work."  Therefore,  the 
inspired  scriptures  are  infallible  ;  granted.  Sir,  but  are  the  inspired 
scriptures  interpreted  by  every  individual  the  only  Rule  of  Faith"? 
Do  the  words  of  St.  Paul  prove  this  point  9  We  know  how  you 
argue  from  the  words  "  all  scripture  is  profitable  to  teach."  You 
say  if ''all  scripture  is  profitable  to  teach" — therefore  tradition  is 
superfluous.  But,  reverend  Doctor,  may  it  not  be  said,  that  meat 
is  profitable  to  nourish — therefore,  drink  is  not  necessary.  This 
logic  is  ludicrous,  and  your's  is  farce  !  We  of  the  old  school, 
never  looked  upon  the  word  profitable  to  mean  sufficient.  Per- 
haps the  preacher  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church  will  condescend 
to  remove  our  error.  Your  third  and  fifth  texts  we  unite,  as  they 
express  the  same  thing.  Prov.  xxx.  6.  "  Add  thou  not  unto  his 
words,  lest  he  reprove  thee,  and  thou  he  found  a  liar  :^^  Rev.  xxii. 
19.  *'  For  I  testify  to  every  one  that  feareth  the  word  of  the  pro- 
phecy of  this  book.  If  any  man  should  add  to  these  things,  God 
shall  add  unto  him  the  plagues  written  in  this  book.  And  if  any 
man  shall  take  away  from  the  words  of  the  book  of  this  prophe- 
cy, God  shall  take  away  his  part  out  of  the  book  of  life."  Your 
argument  from  this  text  is  the  following: — If  any  man  shall  add 
to  the  words  of  this  apocalyptical  prophecy,  he  shall  be  punished 
by  God.  But  the  Catholics  add  traditions — therefore  the  Catho- 
lics shall  be  punished  by  God.  Therefore  the  Scriptures  alone 
must  be  adhered  to,  as  interpreted  b^  every  man's  private  judg- 
ment.    You  have  placed  too  rash  a  reliance  on  this  text,  Rev. 


41 

sir.  Do  not  the  Calvinists  add  the  Gospels,  and  the  Epistles 
of  the  Apostles,  the  institute  of  Calvin?  the  Catechism  of  Hei- 
delberg to  the  Apocniypsc?  Tiierefore  the  Calvinists  shall  bo 
punished  by  God.  Again,  if  nny  man  shall  take  away  from  the 
words  of  tliis  prophecy  he  shall  be  taken  out  of  the  book  of  life; 
but  the  Lutherans  do  not  simply  take  away  from  the  words  of 
this  f)rop!iecy.  but  they  also  exclude  it  from  the  canon  of  the 
Sacred  Scriptures.  Tiierefore  the  Lutherans  shall  be  taken  away 
from  the  book  of  life.  Kcceive,  then,  in  return,  your  own  ad- 
vice, and  "  read  the  tremendous  maledictions  of  Almighty  God 
on  all  those  who  add  to  and  who  take  away  from  God's  written 
word  !  I"  Ponder  on  your  own  oracular  words  ;  "  every  error  and 
heresy  has  hstveak  side  f  and  receive  our  assurance,  that,  what- 
ever be  the  attributes  of  your  spirit  of  interpretation,  it  wants 
that  of  wisdom. 

You  squint,  reverend  sir,  when  you  insinuate  that  we  wish  to 
prove  the  Bible  to  be  a  '•'failure,'''  and  'imperfect.'     Neither  is 
asserted,  but  we  say  that  of  all  the  intellectual  labours  a  learned 
man  can  undertake^,  there  is  not  any  that  requires  so  many  ta- 
lents, and  so  great  an  extent  of  learning  as  the  interpretation  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures.     The  perfect  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew  and 
the  Chaldean   languages  is  absolutely  necessary.     It  requires  a 
large  acquaintance  with  Ancient  History,  sacred  and  profane,  and, 
especially,  with  the  History  of  the  Oriental  nations.     The  Geo- 
graphy of  those  countries  should  be  well  known.     This  is  evi- 
dent from  the  many  dissertations  on  the  situation  of  the  garden 
of  Eden,  and  on  the  dispersion  of  nations  after  the  confusion  of 
tongues.     It  is  necessary  to  be  well  acquainted  with  the  fathers, 
ecclesiastical  writers,  chronologers,  and  even  with  the  rabbins. 
Our  interpreter  must  be  no  novice  in  Physics  and  Natural  His- 
tory.    The  necessity  of  this  is  evident  from  the  numerous  essays 
written  on  those  branches  of  general  science  to  elucidate  many 
passages  in  the  sacred  writings.     How  will  the  Bible  interpreter 
extricate  himself  from  the   labyrinth  of  various  readings  in  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments,  unless  he  has  been  long  conversant  with 
the  canons  and  practice  of  criticism  9     The  foundation  of  the 
whole  work  must  be  laid  in  a  patient,  exact,  and  profound  study 
of  Theology,  not  only  of  the  dogmatic,  but  also  of  the  mystic 
and  spiritual.     It  supposes,  in  the  first  place,  great  natural  talents 
of  mind,  necessary  for  the   undertaking  of  such  a  work,  much 
penetration  to  scrutinize  the  depths  of  the  mysterious  and  secret 
meanings,  much  discernment  to  know  how  to  make  a  choice  in 
the  variety  of  senses  and  opinions,  and  to  choose  the  right  side. 
If  we  examine,  reverend  doctor,  by  these  rules,  the  interpreter! 
of  the  sacred  books,  such  as  tinkers,  coblers,  old  women,  <fec., 

6 


we  shall  find  very  few,  perhaps  not  one  of  them,  who  has  not  been 
deficient  in  the  primary  requisites  essential  to  this  high  and  holy 
employment.  Again,  if  the  Scriptures  are  so  very  dea?' why  have 
the  presses  groaned  under  a  weiglit  of  commentaries,  expositions, 
paraphrases,  abridgments,  &c.  Burton  in  Iiis  anatomy  of  melan- 
choly, tells  us  "that  whole  teams  of  oxen  could  not  draw  them." 
Luther  in  his  preface  to  the  Psalms,  says  "  I  am  convinced  that  he 
must  possess  the  most  unblushing  temerity,  who  dm^es  assert  that 
he  U7ider stands  a  single  book  of  Scripture  in  all  its  parts."  Influ- 
enced by  these  considerations  sir,  we  say  that  the  Bible  is  a  hard 
and  dfficult  book,  that  it  is  obscure,  but  we  deny  that  it  is  imper- 
fect, (as  far  as  we  have  it,)  or  a  "  failure."  You  must  well  know, 
reverend  Doctor,  that  this  presumption  of  light  to  understand  the 
Scriptures,  and  which  you  assert  to  be  the  birth-right  of  every 
man,  has  caused  the  most  awful  divisions  and  devastations  in  the 
ranks  of  the  Protestants.  "  This  conceit,  says  Hooker,  in  his 
Ecclesiastical  Polity,  page  119,  has  made  thousands  so  head- 
strong even  in  gross  and  palpable  errors,  that  a  man  whose  ca- 
pacity, will  scarce  serve  him  to  utter  Jive  words  in  a  sensible 
manner,  blushes  not  in  any  doubt  concerning  the  matter  of  Scrip- 
tures to  think  his  own  bare  yea,  as  good  as  the  nay  of  all  the 
wise,  grave  and  learned  judgments  that  are  in  the  whole  world — 
which  insolency  must  be  repressed  or  it  will  be  the  bane  of  the 
Christian  Religion.  Hooker  was  a  most  learned  Protestant.  Yoa 
now  see  what  he  thought  of  your  rule  of  faith.  Read  the  17th 
chap,  of  Deut.  S.  v. — read  also,  2  Paral.  19,  v.  10,  and  you  will 
find  that  the  law  is  not  so  clear,  as  you  would  have  us  to  believe, 
contrary  to  the  dictates  of  common  sense,  and  our  own  judg- 
ments. 

You  say  Doctor  Power  *' suppose  there  is  a  point  to  settled  : 
to  whom  shall  we  go  ?  Will  you  go  with  me  to  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures 9"  Doctor  Power,  reverend  sir,  tells  you,  that  he  will  not 
go  with  you  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  while  you  adhere  to  your  otun 
interpretation  of  them,  he  tells  you  with  the  famous  and  learned 
Protestant  Hooker,  above  cited,  that  to  adhere  to  such  a  rule 
would  be  the  bane  of  Christianity.  That  by  interpreting  the 
dead  letter,  of  the  infallible  Scripture  by  our  own  private  jitd fo- 
ments, the  infallible  Scripture,  could  not  decide  the  point,  and  of 
this  he  thinks  he  will  convince  Doctor  Brownlee.  The  ^^infal- 
lible Scriptures'  interpreted  by  private  judgment,  have  not  de- 
cided the  controversy  between  the  Lutherans  and  Calvinists  about 
the  real  i\nd  f  gurative  Tpresence  of  Christ's  body,  viz.  the  Eucha- 
rist. This  controversy  is  of  two  hundred  years  standing  and 
more.  Take  an  Arian  cobler,  Doctor  Brownlee,  and  tell  him 
that  God  the  Son,  is  one  and  the  self  same  substance  with  his 


43 

Father.  Cite  all  the  passages  out  of  Scripture  to  prove  this 
point,  which  of  course  you  know  in  the  overflowing  of  the  spirit. 
The  cobler  will  wonder  how  God  the  Son  is  one  and  the  self 
same  substance,  with  his  Father,  seeing  that  they  are  quite  dif- 
ferent persons.  He  will  tell  you,  that  the  words,  ''  1  and  my  Fa- 
ther are  one"  mean  onlij  one  hy  affection,  as  he  has  been  inform- 
ed by  his  Doctors.  He  goes  farther  and  examines  whether  his 
interpretation  of  the  text,  when  compared  with  other  texts,  may 
not  be  found  to  be  very  correct.  Ho  finds  a  text  in  John,  27.  2. 
where  Christ  prays  to  his  Father,  "  That  all  his  Disciples  may 
be  one,  as  thou  Father  in  me,  and  1  in  thee.'^  Now,  it  is  at  once 
evident,  that  Christ  never  prayed  that  his  Disciples  might  be  one 
in  substance  ivith  himself.  The  cobler,  i^ev.  Sir,  is  satisfied,  he 
tells  you  tiiat  he  has  all  human  reason  at  his  side,  and  also  the 
evident  demonstration  of  Scripture.  Dear  and  worthy  Doctor, 
either  convince  this  Arian  cobler,  or  give  us  better  argument, 
why  you  deny  that  your  principle  opens  a  way  for  sectaries,  and 
even  those  who  sap  the  very  foundations  of  true  religion.  But 
if  you  and  the  cobler,  were  to  admit  that  Christ  established  in  his 
Church,  a  living,  speaking,  and  infallible  Tribunal,  your  contro- 
versy would  soon  be  decided. 

Under  your  third  head,  you  advance  a  principle,  which  we  ad- 
mit, with  some  modification,  you  say  that  "  God  is  the  only  Lord 
of  the  conscience'''  we  say,  that  God  is  the  only  Supreme  Lord  of 
the  Conscience — and,  though  this  be  strictly  true,  we  know  that 
he  gave  some  to  be  t^^Jpostles,  and  others  to  be  Evangelists,  and 
others  to  be  Pastors  and  Doctors  to  the  consummation  of  the 
Saints,  unto  the  work  of  the  Ministry,  and  unto  the  edifying  of 
the  body  of  Christ."  Ephes.  4.  11. — again,  1  Cor.  12.  29. — 
*•  Are  ail  Apostles  ?  are  all  Prophets  ?  are  all  Doctors  9  do  all  in- 
terpret 9"  They  do,  says  Doctor  Brownlee — And  again,  12.  21. 
"  The  eye  cannot  say  to  the  hand,  I  need  not  thy  help,  nor  the 
head  to  the  feet  you  are  not  necessary  for  me."  You  are  a  fool- 
ish man,  Paul,  says  the  preacher  in  the  Middle  Dutch  Church, 
"  is  not  God  the  only  Lord  of  the  conscience  I  !  !" 

You  say.  Rev.  Sir,  and  most  truly,  "That  every  error  and  he- 
resy has  its  weak  side,"  and  sincerely  do  we  sanction  your  ad- 
mission. You  shall  now  see  the  weak  side  of  your  own  error. 
You  believe  in  the  authenticity  of  the  Bible,  this  is  an  article  of 
your  faith,  such  as  it  is,  and  this  article  of  your  faith  you  have  on 
the  "evidence  of  antiquity" — therefore  the  Bible  alone,  is  not 
your  Rule  of  Faith.  You  add  to  it  the  evidence  of  antiqity" — 
'•The  Jews  give  their  testimony  to  the  Hebrew  Bible's  authen- 
ticity. What  kind  of  witnesses  were  they?  St.  Chrysostom 
says  in  his  ninth  Homily  in  Matthew.     "That  mixviy  of  the  Pro- 


44« 

phetical  Monuments  have  perished,  for  the  Jews  being  careless, 
and  also  impious,  have  lost  some  of  those  monuments,  others  they 
have  partly  burnt,  partly  torn  in  pieces."  St.  Justin  against 
Typhon,  shows  that  the  Jews  destroyed  many  of  the  books  of  the 
old  Testament,  that  the  New  might  not  seem  to  agree  with  it. 
And  yet  the  Jews  are  your  vouchers  for  the  Hebrew  B!l)le.  But 
you.  Rev.  Sir,  are,  forsooth,  nearer  to  the  true  and  the  genuine 
sources  of  information,  than  either  young  St.  Chrysostom  or 
Justin!! — and  the  Jews  are  to  you  veracious  witnesses  in  hand- 
ing us  the  Hebrew  Bible  ! 

Next  come  the  Albigcnses,  your  "  primitive  Christians,"  a  no- 
ble ancestry  ! ! !  What  a  libel.  Rev.  Sir,  on  the  primitive  Chris- 
tians. Who  were  the  Albigcnses  9  They  were  the  enemies  of 
order  and  of  the  human  race.  These  "  primitive  christians"  be- 
lieved that  there  were  two  Gods,  one  good  the  other  bad.  They 
despised  the  Old  Testament  as  the  book  of  the  devil.  They 
held  marriage  to  be  unlawful  without  considering  chastity  a  vir- 
tue. Such  were  the  execrable  tenets  of  the  Albigcnses  wiiich 
they  propagated,  like  Mahomet,  by  plunder,  rapine,  fire  and 
sword.  Surely  you  must  be  ignorant  of  their  history,  when  you 
tell  us  they  are  the  primitive  christians,  and  the  faithful  guardians 
of  the  Scriptures  and  of  the  "  Apostolical  Traditions" — See  Ro- 
ger de  Hoveden,  Mosheim's  History,  and  d'Argentre,  who  pro- 
duces the  judicial  acts  upon  which  many  of  them  were  con- 
demned. But,  Rev.  Sir,  why  do  you  neglect  to  mention  the 
testimony  of  the  church  of  Christ  in  favor  of  the  Scriptures'? 
Here  is,  then,  before  the  christian  public,  a  man  calling  himself 
a  christian  Minister,  adducing  as  his  proof  of  tlie  authenticity 
of  his  Bible,  persons  who  despised  his  Bible  and  corrupted  it, — ^, 
and  says  nothing  of  the  testimony  of  its  only  depository,  the 
church  of  the  Redeemer,  which  transmitted  it  to  us,  pure  and  en- 
tire. Shade  of  Calvin,  how  perverse  are  your  preachers!  It  is 
to  be  observed,  the  historical  testimony  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
is  only  another  name,  for  the  tradition  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
as  will  be  shown  in  due  time.  If  the  learned  Calmet,  Rev.  Sir, 
be  authority,  there  were  no  fewer  than  fifty  false  Gospels  in  the 
world.  Now^,  were  the  true  and  genuine  Gospels  separated  from 
the  false  and  spurious  ones,  by  the  Albigcnses  and  the  other 
Heretics'?  You  ought  to  feel  shame,  Rev.  Sir,  for  the  disgrace 
with  which  you  affect  Christianity,  by  engrafting  it  on  the  rotten 
trunks  of  old  heretics,  and  for  representing  them,  equally  as  the 
Jews,  as  the  true  witnesses  of  the  Scriptures.  Shame,  you  should 
be  utterly  ignorant  of  Protestant  Theology  on  ihis  point ! 

The  Protestant  author  of  the  book  entitled  Scripture  and  the 
Church,  and  who  is  highly  praised  by  BullingeVi  says,  cap.  15, 


45 

fol.  71.  72.  ''That  the  Church  of  God  is  endued  with  the  Spirit 
of  God  ;  and  that  the  diligence  and  authority  of  the  Church  is 
to  be  acknowledged  herein,  which  hath  partly  given  forth  her 
testimony  of  the  assured  writings,  and  partly,  by  her  spiritual 
judgment  refused  the  writings,  which  are  unworthy.  We  could 
not  believe  the  Gospel,  were  it  not  that  the  Church  taught  us, 
and  icitnessed  that  this  doctrine  was  delivered  by  the  Apostles." 

Hooker  in  his  Eccles.  pol.  sec.  14.  p.  SO,  writes  tlius — "Of 
things  necessary  the  chiefest  is  to  know,  wiiat  books  we  are 
bound  to  esteem  Holy.  The  first  outward  motion,  leading  men 
to  esteem  so  of  the  Scripture,  i*  the  authority  of  God's  Church. 
Luther,  on  tiie  IGth  chap,  of  John,  says  that  if  he  had  not  re- 
ceived the  word  of  God,  from  the  Cntlioiio  Church,  he  should 
have  known  nothing  ahcid  ity  Why  did  you  conceal  this  point  'I 
You  have  concealed  it  either  from  ignorance  or  malice — if  from 
ignorance,  we  pity  you — if  from  malice  it  shows  the  weakness 
of  your  cause,  which  asserts  that  your  faith  is  founded^on  the 
word  of  God^  or  on  the  Bible  only,  when  it  is  evident  that  you 
must  believe  in  the  Bible  on  \\\q  authority  of  the  Catholic 
Cliurch. 

When  the  Protestant  says  that  the  only  rule  of  faith  and 
judge  of  controversy  is  the  Holy  Scriptures  speaking  to  us  in  the 
written  word  of  God.  "  We  ask,  and  we  do  so  according  to 
to  every  legitimate  argument" — How  do  you  know  that  the  book 
which  you  call  the  Bible,  and  which  we  on  our  own  principles 
believe  to  be  inspired,  is  in  truth  the  word  of  God?  We  do  not 
range  ourselves  by  the  side  of  Voltaire,  or  Paine,  or  Hume, 
when  we  ask  this  question.  You  saw  its  force  when  you  evaded 
it.  In  your  principle,  you  could  not  answer  it  witiiout  falling 
into  a  palpable  contradiction.  You  cannot  deny  that  you  know 
the  Scriptures  on  the  authority  of  the  Catholic  Church.  You 
have  said  that  you  knew  them  on  the  authority  of  the  Heretics, 
who  looked  on  some  of  tliem  as  the  work  of  the  Dovil,  and  on 
the  authority  of  the  Jews,  who  corrupted  and  destroyed  many 
parts  of  them.  In  either  case  you  are  fettered  to  no  trivial  dif- 
ficulty, and  to  escape,  will,  we  are  sure,  cost  you  no  little  trouble. 

We  shall  now,  with  your  leave,  try  the  objections  of  the  Deist 
against  your  rule.  The  Infidel  will  tell  you,  that  the  text  of  Holy 
Writ,  is  on  many  accounts  insufiicient  to  be  the  sole  criterion  of 
authority.  He  sees  that  from  the  first  promulgation  of  Chris- 
tianity to  this  hour,  the  most  extravagant,  the  most  impi(Kis,  and 
the  most  contradictory  faiths  have  been  founded  on,  and  plausi- 
bly defended  by,  the  glorious  right  of  private  judgment,  acting 
on  the  Scriptures.  He  will  tell  you,  that,  by  erecting  your  bat- 
teries against  tradition,  you  lay  the  axe  to  the  root  of  Christiani- 


45 

ty,  and  that  whilst  the  sense  of  the  Bible  remains  as  disputable, 
and  whilst  the  tradition  of  the  Church  remains  as  problematical, 
Christianity  will  want  the  proper  force  of  religion,  that  force, 
which  subdues  the  mind,  and  awes  the  conscience  by  conviction. 
Your  pitiful  cavil,  which  says  that  a  thing  is  not  to  be  rejected 
because  it  is  abused,  is  a  stale  one.  It  has  been  a  thousand 
times  proposed,  and  as  often  refuted.  A  ^ood  is  not  to  be  re- 
jected because  it  is  abused,  but  undoubtedly  the  principle  that 
leads  to  the  abuse  of  a  good  thing,  ought  to  be  rejected,  and 
such  is  your  principle  of  private  interpretation.  It  has  opened 
the  door  to  all  the  heresies,  that  ever  infested  the  Church  of 
God.  Hooker,  in  the  place  already  quoted  by  us,  says  it  is  the 
bane  of  Christianity.  We  do  not  say  the  Bible  ori^^inales  errors, 
but  we  say,  your  senseless  and  extravagant  conceit  with  regard 
to  internal  illumination,  as  regards  the  sense  of  the  Bible,  has 
generated  the  most  damnable  errors.  You  say  there  is  an  inter- 
nal evidence  of  inspiration  in  the  Bible,  which  flashes  as  the  sun 
at  meridian,  on  the  minds  of  those  who  read  it  attentively  and 
devoutly.  Why  then  do  the  devout  and  pious  Lutherans,  reject 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews — the  Epistle  of  St.  James — the  se- 
cond and  third  of  St.  John — the  Epistle  of  St.  Jude  and  the  Apo- 
calypse ?  Were  the  Deist  to  test  your  assertion  by  the  question 
now  put  to  you,  Doctor  Power  does  not  see  how  you  could  an- 
swer for  the  internal  evidence  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. Then,  were  the  Deist  to  say  to  Dr.  Power,  Sir,  I  cannot 
see  any  internal  evidence  of  inspiration  in  the  Holy  Scriptures; 
Doctor  Power  would  say,  that  he  himself  sees  no  such  evidence 
of  their  inspiration,  that  he  would  not  believe  the  Scriptures  un- 
less led  to  their  belief  by  the  Catholic  Church;  that,  if  the  Deist 
would  follow  him  into  the  Catholic  Church,  he  would  show  him 
the  evidence  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures. 

We  have  told  you,  what  is  our  Rule  of  Faith  and  Judge  of 
Controversy.  The  questions  put  in  the  last  paragraph  of  your 
illogical  and  crude  farrago,  will  be  attended  to  when  we  come  to 
prove  our  Rule.  Having  followed  you  thus  far,  we  must  pro- 
ceed with  our  proofs  of  the  absurdity  of  your  Rule  of  Faith  and 
Judge  of  Controversy. 

Granting,  that  on  the  authority  of  the  Church,  viewing  it  as 
an  historical  medium  only,  you  know  that  the  Epistles  of  St. 
Paul,  were  written  by  him,  will  this  fact  prove  their  inspiration"? 
We  think  not,  Rev.  Sir.  In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  chap.  .xi. 
V.  24,  Barnabas  is  said  to  be  ''full  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  of 
faiths  He  is  called  an  Apostle,  Ibid.  c.  xiv.  v.  13.  This  Apos- 
tle, Barnabas,  wrote  an  Epistle,  the  authenticity  of  which  is  not 
questioned,  but  its  inspiration  is  ijot  admitted.     See  Du  Pen, 


47 

Dissertation  Preliminaire  sur  la  Bible.  The  authenticity  of  this 
Epistle  is  admitted  by  the  erudite  Protestant,  Doctor  Lardner, 
who,  on  tlic  authority  of  the  early  Fathers,  says  it  is  genuine. 
Sec  Crcdibilitxj  of  the  Gospel  History,  vol.  iii.  G.  J.  If,  then 
the  certainty  of  having  tiie  Papistic  of  St.  Paul.,  pure  and  entire 
from  his  own  hand,  bo  a  motive  with  you  for  admitting  his  writ- 
ings among  the  inspired  Scriptures  tell  us  why  you  reject  the  au- 
thentic Epistle  of  Barnabas,  whom  you  believe  to  have  been  an 
Apostle.  There  is  inconsistency,  Rev.  Sir,  in  this,  which  we 
cannot  otherwise  account  for,  than  by  supposing  that  you  are 
directed  by  an  authority,  of  the  influence  of  which  you  pretend 
to  be  unconscious.  Take  the  gospels  of  St.  Mark  and  Luke, 
Rev.  Sir,  and  with  those  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  Suppose 
those  books  surrounded  by  all  the  evidences  of  history — will  this 
evidence  teach  the  fact  ol  their  inspiration?  It  is  above  human 
testimony.  Are  we  to  believe  them  inspired  on  their  own  au- 
thority 9  St.  Mark  asserts  no  such  claim,  and  St.  Luke  would 
lead  us  to  think,  that  it  is  to  his  own  industry  he  was  indebted  for 
iiis  information.  Do  they  lay  claim  to  miracles — we  have  no 
evidence  that  they  do.  We  must  then  only  rely  on  an  external 
authority  for  their  inspiration,  an  authority  which  is  not  included 
in  your  rule  of  faith — the  authority  of  the  Catholic  Church. 

When  you  tell  us,  that  the  '^only  Rule  of  Faith  and  the  final 
Judge  of  Controversy  with  every  Protestant  is  the  Holy  Spirit 
speaking  to  us  in  the  written  word  of  God,  the  Holy  Scriptures 
containing  all  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  New" 
you  confess  that  no  one  book  nor  no  certain  number  of  canoni- 
cal books,  but  that  the  whole  collection  of  them  make  up  the 
only  Rule,  by  which  we  are  to  be  wholly  directed.  We  repeat 
what  has  already  been  requested,  how  many,  and  which  are  the 
Canonical  Books  ?  Does  not  your  Bible  receive  into  the  Canon 
of  the  Scriptures,  many  books,  which  your  Lutheran  Brethren 
reject  9  They  have  already  been  enumerated.  The  form  of  ra- 
tional proceeding  then  is,  agree  on  the  books  necessary  to  com- 
plete your  Rule,  before  you  require  of  us  to  be  judged  by  it. 
Again,  Rev.  Doctor,  it  is  strange  to  tell  us,  that  you  arc  directed 
by  a  rule,  which  does  not  exist.  How^  can  you  say  that  you  are 
governed  by  all  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  and  of  the  New, 
when  it  is  evident  that  no  fewer  than  20  books  of  Scripture,  have 
wholly  been  lost.  We  shall  refer  to  the  names  of  some  of  these 
bonks — See  in  the  Book  of  Numbers,  c.  21.  v.  14 — in  the  third 
Book  of  Kings,  (which  you  call  the  first)  c.  4.  32.  The  Second 
Book  of  Chronicles,  c.  9.  v.  29.  —In  the  last  epistle  to  the  Col- 
losians,  St.  Paul  commands  them  to  read  in  the  Church  from 
the  epistle  from  Laodicea.     Where  is  it  9  in  the  first  to  the  Co- 


48 

rinthians  c.  5.  v.  9.,  he  says,  I  wrote  to  you  an  epistle.  Where 
is  it?  St.  Matt,  in  his  27,  c.  v.  9.  cites  words  spoken  by  the 
Prophet  Jer.j  which  do  not  now  exist  in  the  book  of  Jer.  St. 
Malt,  also  c.  2.  v.  2.3,  says  "it  was  spoken  by  the  prophets,  He 
shall  be  called  a  Nazarene."  Where  is  Christ  callecl  a  Nazarene, 
in  all  the  writings  of  the  Prophets  as  they  now  exist. 

In  all  our  controversies,  then,  about  necessary  points,  do  you 
require  we  should  be  guided  by  all  the  books  of  the  Scripture. 
If  this  be  your  demand,  produce  them  all,  that  we  may  know 
what  is  written  in  all  of  them.  You,  must  do  (his.  Rev.  Sir,  or 
show  us,  where  it  is  written,  that  all  things  necessary  to  be  be- 
lieved are  written  in  liie  books  which  we  now  have.  Cite  us  a 
text  proving  this  and  we  shall  hail  the  Preacher  in  the  Middle 
Dutch  Church  as  our  great  Apollo, — even  supernaturally  supe- 
rior to  his  sainted  ancestors —John  Calvin  and  'i'heodore  Beza~: 

You  teil  us,  Kev.  Sir,  and  our  kindest  thanks  for  the  ethereal 
inf(^rmation  are  tendered  in  terms  of  the  most  profound  respect, 
that"  in  these  (the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  and  of  the  New,) 
God  spoke  to  the  Church  in  Hebrew  and  in  Greek  !"  Will  you 
nov»r  have  the  goodness  to  inform  us  why  the  Apostles,  whose 
zeal  for  the  salvation  of  souls  it  is  presumed  could  not  be  sur- 
passed, who  well  knew,  that  true  faith  was  necessary  for  salvation, 
and  that  the  sacred  Scriptures,  if  we  believe  you,  were  the  only 
means  appointed  by  God,  to  conduct  us  to  this  true  faith,  will 
you,  we  ask,  inform  us,  why  the  Apostles  did  not  themselves 
write,  or  command  others  to  translate  the  Scriptures  into  such 
languages,  as  the  vulgar  of  the  different  nations  of  the  earth 
used  and  only  understood?  Unless  th.ey  understood  theScrip- 
tures  they  could  not  be  directed  by  them,  and  unless  they  were 
directed  by  the  Scriptures  according  to  your  doctrine,  they  could 
not  arrive  at  the  knowledge  of  that  faith  without  which  it  is 
"impossible  to  please  God." 

St.  Paul  wrote  to  the  Romans  in  Greek.  The  greatest  part 
of  the  New  Testament  was  written  in  Greek. W  as  Greek  the 
language  of  Rome  ^J  Was  Greek  the  language  of  Pontus,  Cap- 
padocia,  Phrygia,  Pamphylia?  These  places  lie  between  Con- 
stantinople and  Antioch,  we  also  fmd  that  Galatia  is  within  the 
same  range  of  country.  St.  Jerome  tells  us  that  the  dialect  of 
Galatia,  was  a  very  peculiar  one;— and,  in  the  2d  chap,  of  the 
Acts,  you  will  find  that  the  dialects  spoken  in  the  places  now 
named  were  also  different.  ?<Jow,  if  in  those  places  the  Greek  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  was  not  the  common  language,  there  is  every 
reason  to  suppose,  it  was  not  the  language  of  the  people  in  more 
remote  parts — and  that  it  was,  in  few  places,  the  common  lan- 
guage.    Yet  the  greater  part  of  the  New  Testament  was  written 


49 

in  Greek  as  a  rule  for  the  people  to  be  governed  by  ! ! !  Does 
this,  Rev.  Sir,  accord  with  the  wise  order  of  the  divine  economy  ^ 
We  think  not.  xVs  a  query,  not  uninteresting  to  Hellenists  and 
not  altogether  foreign  to  tiiis  particular  topic,  wo  solicit  you  to 
inform  us,  in  what  does  the  Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost  diflcr  from 
the  Pagan  Greek  of  Homer  and  Pindar,  Demosthenes  and  Euri- 
pides ? 

Unwilling  to  receive  favor  without  permission  to  confer  in  re- 
turn, you  are  informed  that  the  Jews  during  their  captivity  at 
Babylon,  lost  the  knowledge  of  the  old  Hebrew  Tongue,  in  which 
the  Law  and  the  Prophets  were  written,  and  in  the  after  period 
of  their  existence,  spoke  Syriac,  a  mixture  of  Hebrew  and  Chal- 
daic.  Those  who  understood  the  Hebrew  were  iew.  H  is  also 
admitted  by  all,- that,  before  the  coming  of  Christ,  there  was  no 
Syriac  Version  of  the  Holy  Scripture.  Hence  for  fourteen  gene- 
rations the  Jews  had  not  the  Bible  in  their  own  original  vernacu- 
lar language.  But  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  were  read  in  their 
Synagogues,  and  the  Psalms  were  sung  in  a  language  they  did 
not  understand.  This  was  done  in  the  days  of  Christ  himself, 
and  he  never  censured  it.  He  never  accused  the  Priests  of  keep- 
ing the  word  of  God  from  the  people,  which  surely  he  would 
have  done,  had  he  considered  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  a  rule,  ac- 
cording to  which  alone  each  person  was  to  be  directed  in  his  be- 
lief. It  may  be  also  said,  that  God  foresaw  the  Jews  would  forget 
the  Old  Hebrew,  and  that,  consequently,  they  could  not  under- 
stand the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  This,  then,  being  known  to  God, 
condescend  to  explain  to  us,  how  he  could  give  to  the  Hebrew 
people  for  their  spiritual  direction,  and  as  their  only  spiritual 
guide,  a  book,  which  they  could  not  possibly  use.  So  serious 
and  awful,  then,  are  the  consequeiices,  Rev.  Sir,  flowing  from 
your  Rule  of  Faith,  and  so  glaring  are  the  absurdities  which  it 
involves,  that  to  us,  it  is  a  matter  of  no  slight  astonishment,  to 
see  thinking  and  well  disposed  men,  pertinaciously  adhering- to 
it.  Fanaticism,  which  has  been  well  defined,  robust  ignorance, 
will  swallow  the  grossest  absurdities.  Such  is  the  effect  of  this 
malady  of  the  understanding,  that  an  opinion  being  once  admit- 
ted from  indolence,  or  neglect,  the  mind  becomes  attached  to  it, 
and  maintains  it  to  be  Just  from  habit.  We  are  unwilling  to 
suppose  you  an  abettor  of  fanatical  folly.  Rev.  Sir,  on  the  con- 
trary, we  would  believe  you  rich,  in  the  gifts  of  a  sober  and  pro- 
found understanding,  and  it  is  on  this  account,  that  we  are  lost 
in  astonishment,  at  seeing  you,  the  cultivator  of  a  principle, 
which  upsets  religion,  and  places  the  Bible  of  God  on  a  level 
with  the  Alcoran.  Recollect,  Sir,  that  the  most  celebrated  of 
impostors,  and  the  most  daring  of  tyrants,  commenced  his  book 
No.  4.-7 


50 

by  these  words — *' There  is  no  doubt  in  this  book.  It  leadeth 
into  the  right  path  him  who  walketh  blindly — him  who  receiveth 
without  inquiry  my  word,  which  saveth  the  simple  and  confound- 
eth  the  wise."     See  the  1st  c.  of  the  Koran. 

Conscious  of  the  many  defects  in  your  forms  of  proof  and 
defence,  you  insult  the  expectations  of  your  "/rz'enf/s"  by  the 
idle  and  farcical  oxcuse  of  "  skirmishing."  ^'  Squinting"  would 
have  been  a  fitter  term  to  delineate  the  character  of  your  crude 
and  illogical  letters.  To  shun  contact  with  serious  argument, 
to  avoid  the  rational  form  of  procedure  demanded  of  you,  and 
then  seek  retreat  under  the  pitiful  plea  of  "  skirmishing"  is  but 
another  mode  of  admitting  your  inability  to  prove  and  defend 
your  Rule  of  Faith.  You  have  been  unfortunate  in  selecting 
the  term  skirmishing.  Tact  and  skill  in  the  general  science  of 
strategy  may  be  inferred  from  the  manner  in  which  the  lighter 
forms  of  fight  are  conducted ;  and  he  who  has  failed  in  the  art 
directing  their  execution,  may  be  suspected  of  not  being  inti- 
mate with  the  higher  attainments  which  preside  over  the  grand 
evolutions  of  the  battle  field.  Ex  pede  Herculem  is  a  Latin 
phrase  intelligible  and  pregnant  with  meaning.  Pity  it  is  not 
the  Latin  of  the  Holy  Ghost !  Still,  we  would  request  our  readers 
to  apply  it  to  the  coarse  phraseology  and  harsh  declamation  con- 
tained in  your  communications.  It  is,  also,  our  wish  they,  and 
especially  the  members  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church  should 
keep  it  in  view,  while  proving  the  queries  so /re^wen^/?/ required 
of  you — viz.  "  Tell  us  how  you  know  the  Bible  to  be  the  word 
of  God  '^  How  do  you  know  which  books  were  v/ritten  by  di- 
vine inspiration  ^  Does  the  Bible  contain  the  whole  of  the  word 
of  God,  or  does  it  not?  Then  there  remain  the  stubborn  sug- 
gestions relative  to  Luther  and  Wesley,  &c.  connected  with  the 
priceless  advantages  involved  in  your  Rule  of  Faith.  This 
done,  the  present  letter  is  recommended  to  your  better  judgment, 
sounder  logic  and  calmer  mind  by  your  very  obedient  servants, 

JOHN  POWER, 
THOS.  C.  LEVINS. 

New  York,  February  2^th,  1833. 


IPr»  Mrownlee'^s  Sjetter^  «7l^o.  3. 

TO  DRS.  POWER  &,  LEVINS. 

"  Ibant  obscuri  sola  sub  nocte  per  umbra  ! 
Clualeper  incertam  lunam,  sub  luce  maligna, 
Est  iter  in  sylvis." — Virg, 

Rev.  Gentlemen — The  elegant  Roscoe  relates  that  a  certain 
laconic  Senate  in  Italy,  condemned  a  man  for  employing  three 
words  were  two  only  should  have  been  used.     And  their  sen- 


51 

tence  doomed  him  to  the  choice  of  two  punishments  :  namely, 
— either  to  go  the  galleys  for  life,  or  to  read  througli  the  verbose 
work  of  Guiciardini.  The  culprit  chose  tlie  latter.  But  having 
fairly  choaked  on  the  first  page ;  he  begged  his  punishment  to 
be  commuted  to  the  galleys  for  life. 

It  is  by  no  means  difficult  to  conceive,  gentlemen,  your  certain 
fate  when  brought  up  to  this  bar.  And  is  it  too  severe  to  add, 
that  it  is  questionable  if  a  severer  punishment  could  be  inflicted 
on  you  (provided  you  possess  literary  nerves  and  sensibility,) 
than  that  of  compelling  you  each  to  read,  and  believe,  and  di- 
gest your  own  extraordinary  letter? 

It  has,  I  observe,  in  general;,  certain  meritorious  attributes; 
and  a  world  of  extravagancies  and  faults ;  while  every  body 
knows  its  main  end  :  namely,  to  retreat  under  covert,  to  mystify 
and  surround  truth  with  a  cloud  of  smoke  and  dust. 

First. — It  has  meritorious  attributes  in  my  estimation ;  even 
more  than  the  fastidious  critic  is  aware  of.  It  is  not  every  reader 
that  can  discern  Mr.  Levins' ^9oZis/i  and  beauty  ;  and  Dr.  Power's 
force  and  forte.  I  will  not  stop  to  compliment  you  on  that  of  in- 
venting new  words,  and  thereby  enriching  the  English  language, 
— such  as  *'canonicity,"  and  ^Mependency"  of  argument,  '^  zea- 
lotry," &c.  Genius  is  entitled  to  soar,  and  use  '^  words  of  learn- 
ed length  and  thundering  sound." 

What  I  conceive  to  be  its  marvellous  "merits^,"  lies  in  the  first 
tioo  columns  of  the  letter.  At  the  slightest  glance  over  your 
pages,  gentlemen,  the  reader  can  see  that  you  have  been  bath- 
ing in  the  fountains  of  Helicon,  or  something  still  better :  that 
you  return  redolent  with  "  Latin"  and  "  Chaldaic,"  and  "  He- 
brew," and  '^ Greek:"  that  you  have  been  gossipping  with 
'^  Homer  and  Pindar :  Demosthenes  and  Euripides;"  nay,  that 
you  have  been  steeped  in  lore, — "  res  caligine  mersas  !"  (See 
p.  71.)  Hence  it  is  not  to  be  vvondeied  at,  that  you  could 
write  the  splendid  eloquence  of  the  first  two  columns.  It  is  as 
superior  to  ancient  pathos  and  elegance  as  the  inspirations  of 
Inishowen  are  superior  to  those  of  the  cold  water  of  Helicon  ! 
Here  is  a  specimen  of  your  rare  eloquence  for  our  schools.  "  In 
it,"  meaning  my  terrible  letter, — "  there  is  the  strut  of  the  bully  ! 
the  gasconade  of  the  coward  !  the  subterfuge  of  the  dissembler  ! 
the  trick  of  tlie  partizan  !  the  pretensions  of  the  sciolist !  the 
petulence  of  the  sour  Calvinist  !  the  malignant  zealotry  of  the 
puritan  !  and  semblance  and  honest  bluntness,  and  gall  spirit, 
passion,  prejudice,  festering  I"  &,c. 

It  is  very  true,  a  man  of  delicate  and  refined  taste  would  be 
apt  to  call  this,  with  M'Gavin, — "  nonsense,"  or  "  bombast,"  or 
*'  Billingsgate," — or  as  Dr.  Chalmers  would  say  "  blackguard- 


15m."  But  I  call  it  quite  another  thing.  It  is  nothing  less  than 
a  lively  emotion,  and  an  honest  burst  of  truth,  from  stricken  con- 
sciences which  cannot  conceal,  which  can  never  conceal  their 
unsubduable  mortification.  This  gust  of  inordinate  passion  and 
fine  pathos,  tells  me,  and  tell  the  public,  how  acutely,  and  deep- 
ly, and  inextricably  you,  both,  felt  the  point  of  every  one  of  my 
arguments  : — ^just  as  the  soldier  indicates  that  he  is  struck  by  the 
bullet,  when  he  leaps  up  in  his  saddle  !  My  Rev.  opponents  are 
*' leaping"  with  "emotions"  throughout  the  two  columns  and  a 
half!  In  fact,  the  "effervescence  of  temper,"  as  they  say,  is 
not  wrought  off,  until  they  have  invoked,  in  a  scrap  of  Latin, 
"  their  pagan  deity  ;"  and  have  urged  words  about  certain  things 
"  plunged  in  the  darkness," — "  res  caligine  mersas  !" 

But  there  is  another  "merit"  in  this  Inishowen  ebulition  in 
my  praise; — namely:  they  have  submitted  to  come  out  at  last; 
they  now  publicly  confess  the  ^'  inspiration,  authenticit}^,  and 
genuineness  of  the  Holy  Scriptures."  '^  We  do  not  deny  the  in- 
spiration  of  the  Scriptures."  And  again  :  "  JVe  hold  the  Scrip- 
tures to  be  an  infallible  Rule,  ^sfc."  It  is  true,  this  is  clogged 
with  a  condition.  For^  let  our  readers  distinctly  remember,  that 
the  Roman  Catholics  do  not  mean  the  same  thing  by  the  word 
Scriptures,  that  we  Protestant  Catholics  do.  The  Protestant 
holds  the  pure,  unadulterated  word  of  God  in  the  Hebrew  and 
Greek  of  the  Roly  Ghost ;  rendered  accurately  into  his  own 
tongue,  to  be  the  word  of  God.  The  Romish  Church  means 
these  same  Scriptures,  clogged  and  encumbered  with  human 
excrescences,  called  the  Apocrypha;  and  moreover,  all  these 
used  only  in  the  Vulgate  Latin ;  which  is  "  the  worst  of  all  the 
worst  translations ;''^  as  every  Hebrew  and  Greek  scholar  in 
Christendom  knows  I  This  he  means  by  his  *' Scriptures." — 
But,  be  that  as  it  may,  we  are  pleased  that  we  have  extracted 
from  them,  before  the  christian  community,  this  grave  conces- 
sion    "  of     THE    INFALLIBILITY     OF    THE      ScRIPTURES  !"       It    is    a 

concession  which  they  shall  never  hear  from  us,  in  behalf  of 
their  Rule  of  Faith,  as  we  shall  presently  show. 

Moreover,  this  unique  letter  is  valuable  to  me,  on  another  ac- 
count. We  have  at  last,  dragged  from  their  unwilling  lips,  a 
confession  of  what  their  infallible  Rule  is.  It  is  "  the  Scrip- 
tures," including  as  above,  the  Apocrypha;  together  with  the 
oral  traditions,  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  Fathers;  all  ex- 
plained,— not  by  ^^ private  interpretation." — No,  no  :  the  very 
word  ^^ private  interpretation'''  or  *•' private  right  of  judgmeyit,'' 
or  "  liberty  of  conscience,'^  so  often  on  the  lips  of  "heretics," — 
throws  our  good-natured  priests  absolutely  into  a  fit  of  hyste- 
rics! No,  but  by  '*  a  visible  society  of  men,  appointed  by 
Christ,  called  the  church  of  God." 


53 

And  mark  it  well,  fellow  christians,  in  this  republic,  they 
gravely  add  this  extravagance  in  the  face  of  this  enlightened 
Protestant  community, — "  To  this  society  of  men,  or  church  of 
God," — meaning  the  churcli  of  Rome, — "  for  the  final  ending 
of  all  controversies  in  religion,  all  christians  are  bound  to  ad- 
here and  submit  their  judgment,  and  their  opinions  in  points  of 
religion  :  and  this  on  pain  of  eternal  damnation ! !  /" 

Our  enlightened  community  needs  no  comments  on  this.  Here 
we  have  the  absolute  climax  of  pontifical  arrogance  !  The  con- 
summation of  fanaticism  !  The  overflowings  of  the  bitter  and 
deadly  cup  of  Roman  priestcraft !  Now  this  is  the  Rule  of  our 
opponent's  church  :  this  is  now  fairly  before  us. 

We  have,  in  our  last  two  letters,  in  the  briefest  manner  pos- 
sible, established  the  truth  of  the  authenticity,  and  inspiration 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures  :  and,  thence,  showed  that  this  evi- 
dence is  the  perfect  evidence  of  the  infallibility  of  the  Bible  ; 
in  which  the  Iloly  Ghost,  as  the  infallible  Judge,  speaks  to  us, 
&c.  This  also,  decides  the  canonicalness  of  each  of  the  books, 
which  constitute  the  entire  number  of  the  holy  canon  of  Scrip- 
ture. Every  book  established  by  the  evidence  referred  to,  is 
of  that  canon  ;  and  every  book  which  is  not  sustained  by  this 
evidence  is  not  to  be  received  into  the  canon.  We  pointed  out 
the  radical  error  of  the  Romish  writers,  on  this  point.  They 
make  the  authority  and  proof  of  this  inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, depend  on  ''  the  Church,"  meaning  the  Romish  Cliurch. 
This  is  one  of  their  chief  and  most  mischievous  errors.  It  aims 
a  deadly  blow  at  divine  Revelation.  But  the  Bible  is  no  more 
dependent  on  the  Roman  churches  for  the  evidence  of  its  divi- 
nity and  its  authority,  than  does  the  sustaining  of  the  heavens 
and  the  earth  depend  on  the  Pope's  nod.  Their  divinity  and 
inspiration  are  fully  sustained  by  other,  and  complete  portions 
of  evidence  besides  tradition  ;  namely,  internal  and  external, 
from  the  display  of  miracles,  from  predictions,  &c.  And  we 
distinctly  noticed  and  again  repeat  it, — that,  for  the  tradition, 
or  historical  evidence  of  the  church,  who  hands  the  canon  of  the 
Scriptures  down,  simply  as  a  depository,  we  are  as  much  indebt- 
ed to  the  Hebrews  and  the  Jews  ;  to  the  Greek  Church  ;  to  the 
pure  and  apostolical  church  of  the  Waldenses,  and  to  the  libra- 
ries of  the  curious,  as  to  the  Church  of  Rome.  That  this  last 
sect  should  set  up  such  arrogant  pretensions,  and  claim  the  whole 
honor  of  transmitting  the  Bible,  and  of  giving  it  all  its  authority, 
must  be  set  down  to  sheer  knavery,  or  a  derangement  in  the  mo- 
ral faculty. 

Now,  from  this  evidence,  /  proved  the  word  of  God  to  be  the 
only  infallible  Rule  of  Faith;  for  it,  and  it  alone  comes  from 


54? 

God  :  and  the  Holy  Ghost  speaking  to  us,  is  the  only  Judge  of 
Controversy,  in  religious  matters  ;  and  I  quoted  select  passages 
which  clearly  and  distinctly  declare  the  mind  of  that  only  judge 
deciding  this  controversy,  And  these  men  who  set  themselves 
up  against  these  texts,  (see  my  letters,)  and  oppose  them,  are 
guilty  of  the  crime  of  setting  up  the  Pope  against  the  Holy 
Ghost !  I  rest  my  appeal  with  the  public.  And  remember,  gen- 
tlemen, that  the  petulant  denial  that  you  gave  to  these  texts,  for 
argument  you  have  none,  was  not  in  proper  keeping  :  you  have 
no  right  to  pronounce  sentence  on  one  of  my  arguments  :  you 
are  neither  judge  nor  jury.  It  belongs  to  the  Christian  public, 
to  pronounce  finally  on  mine  and  your  arguments. 

And  by  this  Protestant  lesson  and  logic,  to  which  you  are,  by 
your  habits,  of  course,  strangers  in  a  great  measure,  I  trust  you 
will  duly  profit  and  fructify  in  future. 

You  have,  with  much  '^  zealotry,'^  endeavored  from  the  outset, 
to  retard  my  approach  to  examine  your  Rule  :  but  now  we  have 
it  fairly  before  us  ;  and  though  you  renew  the  stereotype  chal- 
lenge to  stop  at  certain  points,  until  you  be  satisfied,  I  assure 
you,  gentlemen,  that  I  have  three  reasons  for  rejecting  this  petu- 
lant demand: 

1st.  As  a  Protestant,  I  will  not  be  dictated  to,  as  to  the  mode 
of  my  argument.     For, 

2d.  You  have  not  got  me  into  the  Inquisition  yet  :  and  we 
Protestants  do  not  view  with  much  love,  this  mode  a  la  Spanish, 
of  joining  the  sword  with  the  pen.     And, 

3d.  The  whole  question  of  the  Rule  is  before  us  and  why  do 
you  affect  to  say  that  I  shall  discuss  only  one  point, — and  not 
touch  your  Rule,  or  take  in  the  whole  field'? 

Before  entering  on  the  dissection  of  the  Popish  Rule  and  Judge, 
it  will  be  interesting  to  trace  the  origin  of  this  extravagant  dog- 
ma, and  the  real  motive  which  led  the  partizans  of  Rome  to 
adopt  it. 

Dr.  Middleton  in  his  curious  "  Letter  from  Rome,^^  has  fully  and 
satisfactorily  traced  into  the  ancient  Roman  paganism,  almost 
every  characteristic  right  and  ceremony,  which  the  Roman  Cath- 
olics have  introduced  into  their  corrupted  system  of  Christianity. 
The  parallel  is  truly  striking  and  shall  be  noticed  in  due  time. 
But  the  originating  cause  of  her  adopting  this  dogma  about  the 
Rule  of  Faith,  is  found  solely  in  the  bosom  of  her  own  ambition. 
The  famous  Chillingworth  has  traced  it  with  a  master's  hand  in 
the  following  extract,  which  will  be  perused  by  my  readers,  with 
deep  interest. 

"He  that  would  usurp  an  absolute  lordship  and  tyranny  over 
any  people,  need  not  put  himself  to  the  trouble  and  difficulty  of 


abrogating  and  disannulling  the  laws  made  to  maintain  the  com- 
mon liberty:  for  he  may  frustrate  their  interest  and  compass  his  own 
design  as  well,  if  he  can  get  the  power  and  authority  to  interpret 
themhe  as  plcases,[and  add  to  them  what  he  pleases,  and  to  have 
his  interpretations  and  additions  stand  for  laws;  if  he  can  rule  his 
people  by  his  laws,  and  his  laws  by  his  lawyers.  So  the  Church 
of  Rome,  to  establish  her  tyranny  overmen's  consciences,  needed 
not  either  to  abolish  or  corrupt  the  Holy  Scriptures,  the  pillars 
and  supporters  of  Christian  liberty,  (which  in  regard  of  the  nu- 
merous multitude  of  copies  dispersed  through  all  places,  transla- 
ted into  almost  all  languages,  guarded  with  all  solicitious  care 
and  industry,  had  been  an  impossible  attempt;)  but  the  more  ex- 
pedite way,  and  therefore  the  more  likely  to  be  successful,  was  to 
gain  the  opinion  and  esteem  of  the  public  authorized  interpreter 
of  them,  and  the  authority  of  adding  to  them  what  doctrine  she 
pleased,  under  the  title  of  traditions  or  definitions.  For  by  this 
means,  she  might  both  serve  herself  of  all  those  clauses  of  Scrip- 
ture which  might  be  drawn  to  cast  a  favorable  countenance 
upon  her  ambitious  pretences,  which  in  case  the  Scriptures  had 
been  abolished  she  could  not  have  done,  and  yet  be  secure  enough 
of  having  either  her  power  limited  or  her  corruptions  and 
abuses  reformed  by  them.  This  being  once  settled  in  the  minds 
of  men,  that  unwritten  doctrines  if  proposed  by  her,  were  to  be 
received  with  equal  reverence  to  those  that  were  written ;  and 
that  the  sense  of  Scripture  was  not  that  which  seemed  to 
men's  reason  and  understanding  to  be  so,  but  that  which  the 
Church  of  Rome  should  declare  to  be  so,  seemed  it  never  so  un- 
reasonable and  incongruous.  The  matter  being  once  thus  or- 
dered, and  the  Holy  Scriptures  being  made  in  eftect,  not  your 
Directors  and  Judges,  (no  farther  than  you  please  ;)but  your  ser- 
vants and  instruments,  always  prest  and  in  readiness  to  advance 

your  designs it  is  safe  for  you  to  put  a  crown  on  their  head 

and  a  reed  in  their  hands,  and  to  bow  before  them  and  cry,  hail 
King  of  the  Jews  !  To  pretend  a  great  deal  of  esteem,  and  re- 
spect, and  reverence  to  them." 

This  is  an  ample  exposition  of  the  true  origin  and  design  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  Rule  of  Faith.  It  originated  with  an  igno- 
rant, debased,  and  enslaved  generation  of  men,  in  the  dark  ages: 
and  has  been  a  terriffic  weapon  in  the  hands  of  ghostly  power, 
to  accomplish  the  prostration  of  the  rights  of  man  ;  in  robbing 
him  of  his  civil  liberty,  and  the  rights  of  conscience.  We  now 
proceed  with  our  examination  of  this  Rule. 

1.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  cannot  pretend,  with  any  show 
of  reason  or  conscience,  to  posess  this  ^' infallible  Rule,"  when 
her  greatest  men  cannot  agree  among  themselves,  in  deciding 


56 

where  this  Rule  exists.  Now  every  one  knows  the  great  diver- 
sity of  sentiment,  among  the  Romish  writers  touching  the  point 
where  this  infallible  power  lies.  I  have  formerly  noticed /owr 
distinct  sects  among  them.  I  have  to  add;  that  one  class  led  on 
byPighius,  Alber,  Gretser,  and  Bellarmine,  and  followed  by  all 
the  Jesuits,  place  the  existence  of  infallible  power  in  the  pope  ; 
and  make  him  the  depository  of  interpretation.  Bellarmine  De 
pontiff^.  Lib.  3.  chap.  4.  says  "  the  Pope  cannot  err."  The 
canon  law  in  the  gloss,  calls  the  Pope,  "the  Lord  God."  The 
Bishop  of  Bitonto,  Mussus,  has  styled  him, — "Him  who  is  to  us 
as  our  God  upon  earth."  The  Bishop  of  Grenada  calls  him, — "a 
God  in  earth,  not  subject  to  a  council,"  And  so  late  as  July, 
1809,  Pope  Pius  VII,  in  excommunicating  "his  own  dear  son" 
Napoleon,  whom  he  crowned  and  blessed,  says, — ''We,  unworthy 
^s  we  are  represent  the  God  of  peace!  "  Another  class  made  the 
Pope  an  unlimited  monarch  in  spiritual  and  civil  matters.  This 
was  the  sentiment  of  the  councils  of  Florence,  of  the  Lateran  and 
of  Trent.  Another  class  violently  oppose  this  tyranny,  and  stand 
up  in  behalf  of  the  rights  of  councils;  and  they  assign  the  Pope 
only  the  right  of  Presidency.  Du  Pin,  Paola  and  others  advocate 
this;  and  they  are  sustained  by  the  decisions  of  the  councils  of 
Pisa,  Constance,  and  Basil.  These  opinions  respect  the  Pope's 
supremacy,  and  infallibility. 

The  decretals  of  Pope  Pious  I.  declare  for  the  rights  of  Bishops 
against  the  lordly  claims  of  their  superiors.  "Bishops  are  ac- 
countable only  to  God,"  Bellarmine  opposes  this  with  "  fierce 
zealotry ;"  and  places  him  above  all  councils,  and  all  tribunals 
in  earth,  and  in  law  !  To  crown  the  climax,  he  writes  thus, — De 
Pontus  Lib.  4.  chap.  5.  '^  If  the  Pope  could  so  far  err,  as  to 
command  vice,  and  prohibit  virtue,  the  Church  is  hound  to  believe 
vice  to  be  good,  and  virtue  to  be  bad  /"  I  can  give  many  more 
quotations,  were  it  necessary,  out  of  the  canon  law,  and  decre- 
tals of  Pope  Gregory  XIII.  This  was  the  usual  style  of  the 
ghostly  powers  in  the  dark  ages.  But  now,  they  have  gradually 
receded  from  this  folly  and  impiety,  down  through  the  other 
shades  of  difference,  to  a  "mere  Presidency  of  the  Pope."  And 
Dr.  Pise,  the  Senate  Chaplain,  I  heard  assert  on  the  floor  of  the 
Protestant  Association,  that  they  owned  the  Pope  merely  as  their 
^'spiritual  head:''^  and  rejected  him,  or  rather,  never  owned  him 
as  a  temporal  prince!  It  is  true,  no  man  who  has  read  the  canon 
law  and  decretals,  can  for  a  moment  believe  this.  For  the  Pope 
*' infallibly  "claims  this  power  and  still  wears  the  tiHple  crown? 
And  Dr.  Pise  knows  this. 

Other  Romish  writers  place  councils  above  the  Pope  :  and 
here  have  been  councils  that  have  exercised  this  power.     The 


67 

Count  of  Sinuessano  arraigned,  tried  and  condemned  Popo 
Marcelline  for  pagan  idolatry  !  The  Council  of  Constancd 
condemned  Pope  John  XXIll :  and  that  of  Basil  condemned 
Eu<:jenius  IV. 

The  assembly  of  Cardinals  and  Prelates  of  France  in  1625, 
declared  that  '^  his  Holiness  the  Pope  is  above  all  calumny,  and 
his  faith  out  of  the  reach  of  error  !"  This  was  the  dogma  of 
the  Jesuits.  ^' The  Church,"  say  many  writers,  and  my  oppo- 
nents among  the  rest,  "  the  Church"  is  the  infallible  Rule  and 
Judge.  No  ;  says  another  class,  "  the  Pope  alone  is  Judge  ;'* 
"The  Pope  is  above  the  Catholic  Church."  "No  council  can 
touch  him,"  says  Pighius.  "  He  is  above  councils,"  says  Bellar- 
mine,  yet  he  acts  like  a  holy  son  of  infallibility,  "he  may  be  de- 
posed, only  for  heresy."  (cap.  30.)  Yes  !  say  several  *^  infalli- 
ble councils,"  "we  are  above  the  Pope,  and  can  try  him,  and 
can  depose  him,  and  we  have  done  it  !  And  thus,  they  suit  the 
action  to  the  word,  like  all  honest  men  ! 

Thus  it  is  manifest  that  the  leading  men  of  the  Roman  Church 
are  all  agreed  that  they  have  within  "  the  Church,^''  an  infallible 
Rule  and  Judge.  But  they  are  at  endless  war  among  themselves 
respecting  the  place  where  it  is  deposited.  We  have  it ;  that  is 
certain  ;  but  we  cannot  tell  where  it  is  !  This  made  Dean  Swift 
observe,  that  "  really  the  mother  Church  might  as  well  be  with- 
out an  infallible  head  ;  as  not  to  know  where  to  find  him,  in  timo 
of  necessity !" 

But,  nevertheless,  they  agree  in  a  marvellous  manner  on  this 
point ;  namely, — to  reject  unanimously  Almighty  God  our 
Savior's  own  infallible  Rule  ;  and  himself  as  the  infallible  Judge. 
<•'  They  are  not  content  with  Christ  the  judge  in  heaven  ;  and 
the  holy  scriptures  the  rule  and  judge  on  earth  ; — says  an  emi- 
nent writer, — "  but  they  must  have  another  judge  ;  a  visible 
judge.  Like  the  Israelites,  they  must  have  a  visible  God  to  go 
before  them, — though  it  were  but  a  Calf!'^ 

Let  the  Roman  Catholics  go  then,  and  try  their  infallible 
Rule  in  the  composing  of  their  own  internal  wars  and  contro- 
versies. Let  them  do  this,  before  they  stalk  forth  as  my  learned 
and  wise  opponents  say,  in  reference  to  their  present  warfare, — 
"  armino-  themselves  with  a  panoply  tempered  by  no  terrestrial 
artist ;"  to  attack  the  genius  of  Protestantism  in  his  strong 
holds.  It  will  be  well  for  them  if,  with  the  hero  of  Don  Quix- 
ote, they  meet  not  a  windmill,  in  a  similar  illusion  of  the  brain  ! 

II.  What  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  claim  as  the  only  infal- 
lible Rule,  is  a  thing,  even  by  their  own  testimony,  absolutely 
beyond  the  reach  of  the  Pope,  or  any  council  to  use.  It  is  posi- 
tively impracticable  of  application  of  mortals  ! 

8 


58 

Were  it  not  for  the  impiety  of  the  thing,  it  were  a  piece  of 
pleasant  humoiir  to  hear  a  Roman  priest  descanting  about  the 
obscurity  of  the  Bible  ;  and  melting  into  pathos  about  the  impos- 
sibility of  God's  own  rational  creatures  understanding  a  plain 
and  luminous  message  of  the  Gospel  from  their  Creator.  Now, 
in  opposition  to  all  his  declamation,  it  is  evident  that  the  priest 
never  feared  nor  even  believed  the  obscurity  of  the  Bible.  It  is 
because  it  is  ^^  so  small  a  hooW''  and  because  it  is  so  plain  and 
clear  that  he  does  fear  it;  cvnd  does  keep  it  out  of  the  hands  of 
the  laity.  If  it  were  obscure  it  would  do  "  Holy  Mother"  no 
harm. 

But,  let  any  one  look  at  the  ^'  Infallible  Rule"  of  the  Catholic 
Church!  1st.  It  includes  the  Scriptures,  with  the  Apocrypha, 
with  all  its  tough  fictions  and  indecencies.  Now,  1  tell  you, 
gentlemen,  the  Pope  of  your  church  can  no  longer  wield  the 
sword  of  the  spiritj  and  fix  infallible  interpretations  ;  and  subdue 
the  human  soul ;  and  produce  faith  5  and  a  new  heart  in  man  ; 
and  real  grace, — which  our  infallible  word  and  judge  do, — than 
you  and  the  Pope,  can  create  a  new  Ireland  ;  or  even  cleanse 
the  augean  stable  of  his  Holiness'  court  at  Rome. 

This  is  not  all. — In  your  Rule,  and  as  an  essential  part  of  it, 
you  reckon  all  the  acts  and  decisions  of  "Holy  Mother  Church." 
These  are  deposited,  you  know,  in,  at  least,  8  folio  volumes  of 
the  Popish  Bulls  :  in  10  folio  volumes  of  Decretals  :  in  31  folio 
volumes  of  Acts  of  Councils  ;  in  51  folio  volumes  of  the  Doings 
and  Sayings  of  the  Saints, — "  Acta  Sanctorum,"  and  add  to  all 
tins,  at  least  35  volumes  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  Fathers;  in 
which  are  to  be  found  that  part  of  your  Rule  called  unanimous 
consent  oi  the  fathers.  And  to  all  this  chaos  of  unread,  unex- 
amined, unimagined  material,  you  add  the  almost  boundless  list 
oi unwritten  traditions,  which,  like  the  learned  German's  book, 
contain  "  observations  and  dogmas  on  all  things, — and  some- 
thing besides  ;"  —traditions  which  have  floated  down  on  the 
wind,  and  miasmatic  air  of  nearly  1260  years. 

All  these  cumbrous  and  enormous  additions  made  to  the  Holy 
Scriptures  form  the  Roman  Catholic  rwJe:  the  Vo\)Q  \s  judge. 
This  judge  must  know  the  whole  Bible  infallibly  and  wholly  :  he 
must  be  minutely,  and  perfectly,  and  infallibly  acquainted  with 
all  the  above  named  135  folio  volumes:  he  must  know  infallibly 
all  their  unknowable  contents  ;  reconcile  all  their  irreconcilable 
contradictions;  know  minutely,  and  infallibly,  all  the  cases,  and 
wants  of'all  his  dear  flock,  namely,  the  cardinals,  prelates,  priests 
and  lay  subjects  ;  he  must  know  the  hearts  of  all;  and  be  able 
to  send  light  into  the  human  mind,  and  uprightness  into  the  hu- 
man conscience  :  he  must  know  the  merits,  perfectly,  of  each 


69 

contending  partizan  ;  and  order  of  friars  ;  and  set  forth,  in  a 
plain,  clear,  and  luminous  page,  every  truth  to  settle  disputes  : 
so  that  if  the  combatants  do  not  sec  it,  his  infallible  Rule  may 
yet  convince  and  convert  all  the  predestinated  children  of  hea- 
ven I  And,  finally,  as  the  first  step  towards  his  evidence  of  doing 
all  the  rest,  he  must  write  down  as  clearly  as  by  a  sun  beam,  the 
place  where  the  long  sought  for,  the  terra  incos;mta  of  this  un- 
discovered, and  undiscoverable  land  of  infallibility  and  supre- 
macy can  be  found  !  That  is,  your  infallible  judge  must  begin 
by  conquering  an  absolute  impossibility ;  and  this  over,  he  must 
show  proof  further,  by  triumphantly. proceeding  to  conquer  ten 
thousand  impossibilities;  annually,  hourly,  and  each  minute  ! 

This  being  manifestly  the  true'state  of  the  case,  one  is  almost 
tempted  to  think  the  claims  of  the  Catholic  Church  to  one  infal- 
lible head  or  judge  only,  to  be  quite  moderate  and  modest.  I 
am  persuaded  that,  in  order  to  know  infallibly  the  Hebrew  text, 
and  the  Greek  text,  and  all  the  different  sentiments  and  doctrines 
contained  in  these  135  folio,  and  to  digest  and  arrange  all  the 
oral  traditions,  and  bring  the  unanimous  consent  out  of  the 
fathers,  where  no  consent  ever  existed — not  even  ten  millions  of 
Popes,  such  as  the  luxurious  and  effeminate  beings,  which  have 
reigned  in  R-ome  under  the  name  of  Pope  could  do  the  ten  mil- 
lionth part  required  of  this  Rule. 

Nay,/  must  put  the  case  stronger  still;  none  but  Almighty 
God  has  the  attribute  of  infallibility ;  none  but  God  can  reveal 
to  the  church  his  own  word ;  none  can  be  the  Lord  of  the  Con- 
science, but  our  Creator,  and  he  is  supreme  Lord  thereof.  And 
there  can  be  no  more  any  inferior,  or  subordinate  Lord  of  the 
Conscience,  as  my  opponents  affirm,  than  there  can  be  a  rival  to 
the  Almighty  on  the  throne  of  our  hearts,  and  on  his  throne  in 
heaven.  None  can  be  judge  and  rule  of  faith,  but  he  only  who 
can  create  a  new  heart  in  us;  and  make  us  true  Christians,  even 
the  Great  God,  who,  indeed,  uses  men  as  pastors,  and  to  be  our 
spiritual  teachers  and  advisers;  but  who  alone  knows  all  the  se- 
crets of  the  souls  of  men  :  who  alone  convinces  and  converts. 
He  alone  can  be  the  judge  ;  and  his  word  alone  can  be  our  rule. 
And  those  who  set  up  these  counter  claims,  we  repeat  it,  must 
either  be  designing  knaves,  using  fiilse  and  wicked  pretences  to 
gain  an  ascendancy  over  the  souls,  bodies,  and  goods  of  men  ;  or 
else,  as  Dr.  Rush  says,  "they  are  deranged  in  the  moral  f acidly  T* 
And  as  that  means  the  conscience,  and  is  a  derangement  brought 
on  by  their  provoking  God  and  breaking  his  laws,  it  is  no  cxten- 
nation  of  guilt.  This  claim  set  up  by  the  Pope,  and  the  priests, 
reminds  me  of  the  saying  of  a  maniac  in  the  Philadelphia  Asy- 
lum, "  People  think  me  idle  here,  in  my  cloister,  or  dungeon  cell 
in  this  easy  old  bachelor  life,  which  I  am  leading  !     But,  alas  I 


eo 

for  the  ignorance  of  mankind  !  Be  it  known,  that  I  keep  in 
motion  the  balance  wheel  of  heaven  :  and  but  for  me,  all  nature 
would  stand  still  !" 

The  Pope's  claims  are  fully  as  extensive  and  as  extravagant. 
He  absolutely  affects  to  do,  in  the  spiritual  world,  and  the 
church,  and  in  purgatory,  and  in  heaven,  vvhat  the  maniac  be- 
lieved he  did  in  the  natural  world  !  The  Pope  keeps  the  balance 
wheel  of  heaven  in  motion  ;  but  for  him  all  illuminations,  and  all 
efficacies  of  grace,  and  all  conversions,  and  all  deliverances 
from  sin,  and  all  emancipation  from  purgatory  :  and  all  entrances 
into  heaven  will  cease  and  stand  still.  See  a  singular  coinci- 
dence between  these  anomalous  claims,  and  the  words  of  St. 
Paul  and  St.  John  in  II  Thess.  ii.  8.— 12.  Revel,  xvii.  1—6. 
But,  gentlemen,  it  is  only  a  coincidence  ! 

This  is  the  commencement  of  our  argument  against  your  Rule, 
— I  must  here  pause,  for  want  of  room  ;  in  order  that  I  may  pay 
my  respects  to  you,  in  a  review  of  a  few  of  the  leading  errors 
and  misstatements  in  your  letter. 

1st.  You  charge  me  with  a  want  of  unity  in  my  last  letter.  I 
assure  you  that  there  is  strict  logical  unity  in  it.  I  laid  down 
my  rule  of  faith  ;  defended  it ;  and  closed  by  showing  that  every 
objection  you  brought  against  our  rule,  operated  ten  times  more 
severely  against  your  rule.  This  was  the  reason  why  I  noticed 
the  errors,  heresies,  and  division  in  your  church.  And  if  I  was 
obliged  to  notice  many  different  kinds  of  them,  this  only  tends 
to  illustrate  the  fatal  error  of  your  Rule. 

But  2d.  There  is  an  error  in  your  statement,  and  I  shall  bring 
it  before  the  public.  For  /have  frankly  to  tell  you  that  I  have 
no  hopes  that  /can  prevail  with  you  to  correct  it.  It  is  a  mis- 
statement copied,  as  usual  from  Milner's  End  of  Religious  Con- 
troversy, It  is  the  standing  error,  the  stereotype  misrepresenta- 
tion of  the  Roman  Catholic  writers;  and  is  repeated  by  every 
little  scribe  which  undertakes  the  defence  of  "  Holy  Mother," 
for  a  few  indulgences.  It  is  this  :  that  you  never  give  our  own 
definitions,  nor  a  fair  description  of  the  Protestant  Rule. 

We  have  repeatedly  stated  that  our  only  infallible  Rule  is  the 
Scriptures:  and  the  only  infallible  judge  is  the  Holy  Spirit, 
speaking  to  us  in  them.  And  these  words  of  God  are  interpreted 
by  his  own  words  in  another  passage  ;  that  is, — the  Spirit  speak- 
ing in  the  word,  interprets  it  to  his  church.  And  hence,  it  is  a 
proverb  on  the  lips  of  all  Protestants,  that  the  Bible,  or  the  Spi- 
rit speaking  in  the  Bible,  is  its  own  interpreter.  All  Protestants 
have  solemnly  denied  that  their  Rule  was  the  Bible  as  explained 
by  private  interpretation ;  or  as  understood  by  every  private  in- 
dividual! And  yet  with  these  denials  before  his  eyes,  Milner 
asserts  this  falsehood  over  again,  in  his  End  of  Religious  Con- 


61 

troversy.  You  gentlemen,  have  repeated  and  propagated  this 
same  slander  :  and  so  has  Dr.  Varela  in  his  letter  to  me.  You 
invariably  tell  your  followers,  that  the  Protestant's  Rule  is  their 
Bible  as  interpreted  l)}i  jrrivctte  judgment.  [See  col.  3.  p.  70. 
Triilh  Teller.]  Indeed,  your  whole  argument  is  based  on  this 
unmanly  misrepresentation,  throughout! 

Your  error  has  arisen  from  mistaking  our  declarations,  touch- 
ing jariua^c  judgment.  We  say  that  in  the  ever  blessed  Refor- 
mation, we  achieved  "the  right  of  private  judgment,"  in  think- 
ins,  for  ourselves  and  choosino^  our  reliirion  ;  instead  of  hirinfr 
priests  to  keep  our  conscience,  and  settle  our  spiritual  accounts 
with  our  Maker  for  money! 

But  we  carefully  teach  our  people,  that  while  they  have  this 
right  of  private  judgment,  in  regard  toman;  they  are  bound  by 
God's  word  to  believe  all  that  he  says,  and  do  all  that  he  com- 
mands :  that  they  have  no  right  before  God  to  take  the  Bible  in 
any  sense  diflerent  from  the  mind  of  the  Spirit  of  God  speaking 
in  it.  That  is,  not  by  private  interpretation ;  but  by  the  Bible's 
own  explanation  of  itself  are  they  to  be  guided. 

I  beg  the  attention  of  my  readers  respectfully  to  this  point. 
It  is  this  solution  which  neutralizes  all  the  Priest's  objections. 
And  this  explanation,  we  cannot  prevail  with  their  candor  to  ob- 
serve. It  is  a  pitiful  cause,  which  requires  its  defenders  to  lay 
down  a  false  statement;  as  the  opinions  of  his  opponent,  that  he 
may,  in  the  estimation  of  the  ignorant,  reap  laurels  for  fighting 
against  a  man  of  straw,  or,  to  use  my  opponent's  elegant  allusion, 
*•  couch  a  lance  against  a  windmill  !" 

As  for  honest  John  Wesley,  it  is  not  in  my  way,  nor  yours 
either,  to  drag  in  the  name  of  that  good  man  into  our  contro- 
versy. Your  arguments,  however,  take  in  a  wide  range  ;  or,  to 
use  a  hunter's  phrase,  "your  gun  scatters  its  shot  too  much." 
You  start  an  idea,  and  there  is  no  saying  where  you  end  ;  as 
Cowper  says,  you — 

"  Start  it  at  home,  and  hunt  it  in  the  dark  ; 
Through  Gaul,  through  Greece,  into  JN'oah's  ark." 

Gentlemen  :  you  ought,  in  honor,  to  quote  the  avowed  creeds 
and  confessions  of  the  church.  No  society  is  accountable  for 
the  private  opinions  of  its  memi)crs_,  while  they  are  innocent 
speculations.  I  have  no  doubt  that  you  have  misquoted  honest 
John.  For  you  must  know  that  his  failings  leaned  to  virtue's 
side.  So  far  from  making  your  (juoted  concessions,  John  Wes- 
ley, actually  pleaded  {ox  perfection  in  this  life!  But,  I  am  un- 
willing to  be  thus  drawn  away  to  personalities.  I  leave  his  de- 
fence to  Dr.  Bangs  of  the  Christian  Advocate  ;  only  adding,  that 
you  had  better  tread  lightly  on  the  ashes  of  John  Wesley ;  and 
similar  worthies;  for, — 


6S 


'*  If  Christian  worth  in  heaven  rise, 
Ye'il  mend  ere  ye  come  near  him  !" 


4.  For  Field  and  the  illustrious  Hooker,  it  is  perfectly  known 
to  every  theologian,  and  to  you  both,  that  these  men  did  not  fa- 
vor your  unscriptural  views,  in  any  one  particular;  and  it  is  dis- 
graceful for  a  man  to  torture  an  idea  out  of  an  author,  contrary 
to  every  argument  in  his  book.  The  quotation  of  Hooker  is, 
however,  exactly  in  accordance  with  my  views.  You  must  have 
been  hard  run  when  you,  cried  to  such  an  honest  Protestant  as 
Hooker,  for  help  to  your  sinking  cause  ! 

5.  I  noticed  not  your  former  remarks  on  Luther,  because  I 
repeat  it,  this  is  personal  abuse,  not  argum^ent.  But  since  you 
stoop  so  low  as  to  reiterate,  I  shall  vindicate  him  here.  Gentle- 
men, you  furnish  us  another  proof,  that  a  Roman  Priest  cannot 
breathe,  nor  eat,  nor  drink,  nor  exist,  without  slandering  good 
old  Luther,  and  the  other  w^orthies  of  the  Reformation  !  It  has 
seemed  to  be  their  very  aliment  to  slander  them.  This  glorious 
and  splendid  achievement  of  the  Reformers,  owned  and  blessed 
of  Almighty  God,  in  giving  civil  and  religious  liberty,  as  well 
as  pure  Christianity  to  every  nation  of  Europe,  who  would  em- 
brace it,  has  ever  been  painful  and  mortifying  to  your  sect. 
Their  name  seems  to  inflict  pain  on  a  priest's  and  monk's  heart, 
as  acutely  as  when  the  steel  touches  the  bare  nerve  !  Do  you 
remember  the  old  saying,  /  think,  of  your  own  Erasmus?  What 
made  the  Romish  priests  so  malignant  against  Luther,  was  this : 
*'  He  touched  the  Pope's  crown,  and  the  priest's  belly  !"  And 
the  latter,  you  know,  is  even  more  delicate  than  most  of  the 
priest's  consciences  I 

You  gravely  asserted  that  Luther  rejected  the  Epistles  to 
James,  Hebrews,  &.c.  This  I  solemnly  deny:  and  every  theolo- 
gian knows  that  your  assertion  is  false  !  If  you  really  knew  no 
better,  it  was  inexcusable  in  you  to  write  on  the  subject :  if  you 
did  know  what  1  have  now  asserted,  it  is  a  criminal,  but  power- 
less attempt  to  injure  the  hero  of  the  Reformation,  whose  fame 
is  increasing  every  year  !  The  truth  is  this  :  When  Luther  was 
yet  half  a  monk,  and  had  his  eyes  only  half  opened  to  the  light 
of  Protestant  truth,  "  he  spoke  lightly"  of  James'  Epistle.  But 
afterwards,  when  he  was  a  thorough  Divine,  he  advocated  that 
Epistle,  as  well  as  all  the  rest.  [See  Home's  Introd.  vol.  iv.  p. 
412.  note.]     And  they  were  inserted  by  him  in  the  canon. 

Some  time  ago,  a  slander  w^as  thrown  out  by  a  Romish  Priest 
in  the  Protestant  Association.  But  it  met  with  a  detection,  and 
caused  no  enviable  feelings  to  the  slanderer.  He  asserted  that 
he  had  a  quotation  from  Luther's  own  works,  in  which  that  Re- 
former is  made  to  confess,  that  he  had  been  an  impure,  wicked 
and  licentious  man.     But,   as  usual,  in  Pvoman  Catholic  quota- 


63 

tions  by  priests,  the  quoter  stopt  short  in  the  middle  of  Luther's 
sentiment.  And  how  was  the  slanderer  countbunded  when  he 
was  helped,  by  a  skilful  accoucheur,  a  friend  of  mine,  to  deliver 
himself  of  the  rest  of  the  sentence! — namely, — "All  this  I 
was,"  says  Luther,  ^'  while  1  was  a  Roman  Catholic  and  a  monk  ; 
but  now  /am,  by  the  grace  of  God,  what  I  am  !" 

And  Dr.  V^arela  in  his  letter  to  me,  has  retailed  extensively  a 
variety  of  slanders  against  Luther  and  Calvin,  from  their  well 
known  Books  of  jMonkish  fictions.  No  man  of  sense  believes 
these  ridiculous  fictions.  And  I  should  be  guilty  of  insulting 
the  understanding?,  and  consciences  of  my  three  opponents,  did 
I  even  insinuate  that  they  did  themselves,  believe  them.  But 
it  is  unmanly  and  criminal  in  men  of  letters  and  taste,  to  feed 
the  vile  appetite  of  slander,  among  a  degraded  and  ignorant 
community,,  the  simple  faithful ;  who  read,  andthink,  and  believe 
by  sacerdotal  proxy. 

'•  Id  sooner  be  a  dog  and  bay  the  moon, 
Than  such  a  Roman." 

Mr.  M'Crie,  in  his  life  of  Knox,  has  given  us  a  few  delectable 
specimens  of  this  Roman  mode  of  arguing  down  the  Reformers. 
He  tells  us  that  the  Scottish  Catholics  gave  out  that  John  Knox's 
head  was  converted,  before  he  died,  into  a  dog^s  head,  with  its 
face  turned  backwards  !  And  that  he  was  known  to  have  visible 
communion  with  the  devil  !  And  this  is  gravely  professed  to  be 
believed  by  our  priests  to  this  day  I  It  is  one  of  the  grand 
miracles  ! 

6.  In  your  assault  on  the  integrity  of  the  Holy  Bible,  you  per- 
mit youselves  to  say  that  no  less  than  20  books  of  the  old  Testa- 
ment have  been  lost:  they  being  destroyed  by  the  Jevvs.  I  am 
sorry,  gentlemen,  that  you  are  so  reckless  of  truth.  In  this  you 
assert  what  every  sound  theologian .  knows  to  be  utterly  false! 
Not  one  book,  not  one  sentence  o( inspired  Scripture  is  known 
to  be  lost.   [See  Jones,  Home,  etc.  on  the  canon.] 

7.  You  quote  a  writer  approved  by  Bullinger.  We  agree  to 
every  sentiment  in  it.  But,  gentlemen,  you  have  committed 
rather  an  odd  blunder.  He  says,  ''  the  Church  taught  us,  d:c." 
He  does  not  say,  '^the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  &,c."  And  it 
is  time  that,  in  all  conscience,  you  learned  to  know  the  w^ide  dif- 
ference between  these  two  societies — the  Church  and  the  R.  C. 
Church. 

Lastly  :  I  close  by  reviewing  your  invective — I  had  almost  said, 
brutal  invective  against  the  IValdenses,  a  people  dear  to  all  good 
men,  the  primitive  and  apostolic  church,  in  tlie  valleys  of  Pied- 
mont and  Bohemia. 

Ah!  gentlemen,  "Old.  Mother  Church"  has  lost  none  of  her 
ancient  virulence ;  but  with  her  age,  she  is  becoming  feeble  and 


64 

toothless.  And  as  Livy  has  finely  said — "  V ana  sine  viribus 
ira  esty  The  world  is  not  to  be  forever  covered  with  darkness  ; 
and  a  ready  prey  to  impostors.  Late  extensive  and  learned 
researches,  have  thrown  a  clear  light  over  the  aspersed  character 
of  those  holy  martyrs  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  ignorant  and  obscure 
writers  you  quote,  together  with  Mosheim  and  a  ^ew  other  Potes- 
tants  who  permitted  themselves  to  be  imposed  on  by  Roman 
Inquisitors,  are  no  more  to  be  relied  on  for  the  character  of  the 
Waldenses,  than  would  the  records  of  the  Jews,  who  murdered 
our  Lord,  bo  relied  on  for  l/t5  character.  What!  believe  the 
murderous  Inquisitors  character  of  our  dear  bretheren,  the  Mar- 
tyrs !  Believe  the  Roman  slanders  of  our  dear  bretheren,  the 
primitive  Chistians. 

But  it  so  happens  that  we  have  the  testimony  of  two  Inquisi- 
tors, and  some  prelates,  and  of  ^neas  Silvius,  afterward  Pope 
Pius  11.  against  the  slander  perpertrated  at  Rome,  against  the 
"Waldenses;  and  unblushingly  advocated  and  perpetuated  by  Drs. 
Power  and  Levins,  in  this  enlightened  age  !  Besides,  we  have  two 
of  the  ancient  creeds  of  these  primitive  Christians,  yet  extant. 
From  all  these  testimonies  it  appears  that  they  were  strictly 
moral,  believed  in  one  God,  in  the  Holy  Trinity,  and  in  all  the 
doctrines  held  by  the  Calvanistic  churches  of  the  Reformation. 

/shall  recur  to  this,  and  exhibit  fully  these  testimonies  again. 
Meantime  my  readers  are  referred  for  a  full  account  of  these 
eminent  Christians  and  martyrs,  to  Jones''  History  of  the  Wal- 
denses; published  here  in  1824,  and  edited  by  our  eloquent  bro- 
ther, the  Rev.  Spencer  H.  Cone,  in  two  volumes,  octavo. 

And  when  we  come  to  the  sansjuinary  marks  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  under  the  article  Persecution,  we  shall  rehearse 
a  tale  of  woe,  not  equalled  in  history,  perhaps;  nor  surpassed 
in  fiction.  /allude  to  the  horrid  massacre,  and  extermination 
of  the  Waldenses,  by  the  Pope  Innocent  VIII.  and  his  ferocious 
priesthood. 

The  Jews  of  old  bewailed  the  deeds  of  their  ancestors,  and 
gaid,  ^'  Had  we  lived  in  the  days  of  our  fathers,  we  would  not 
have  slain  the  prophets."  And  they  garnished  the  sepulchres 
of  the  martyred  holy  ones.  But  alas!  in  this  enlightened  age, 
the  less  humane  priests  of  Rome  do  not  only  refuse  to  garnish 
the  tombs  of  the  martyred  Waldenses  and  Albigenses,  but 
they  breathe  the  poisoned  breath  of  cruel  slander  over  their 
sacred  ashes.  In  the  vindictive  attributes  they  have  always 
been  immutable. 

lam,  gentlemen,  your  obedient  servant,  and  well  wisher, 

W.  C.  BROWNLEE, 
Pastor  of  the  North  and  Middle  Dutch  Church. 

New  York,  March  6. 


Rextly  of  l^rs.  Power  aud  Ltcvins^ 

TO  DR.  BROWNLEE. 

No.  3. 

Ami  I  will  turn  my  hand  upon  thee,  and  purely  purge  thy  dross,  and  take  away  thy 
tin. — Isaiah  i.  2b. 

JRev.  Sir — Since  the  days  of  the  Lion  Hearted  Richard,  or,  to 
go  back  to  a  more  remote  period,  since  the  antique  days  of  the 
querulous  Thersiies  under  the  walls  of  Ilion,  many  modes  for 
the  display  of  both  moral  and  animal  intrepidity  have  been  as- 
sumed. The  battle  warriors  of  the  Grecian  Bard  have  been  ex- 
emplars to  some, — others  have  earned  an  undying  and  unenvied 
fame  by  close  attention  to  the  ribald  excellencies  of  the  foul 
tongued  Thcrsitcs. 

In  the  intellectual  world,  too,  illustrations  of  the  diversity 
characteristic  of  the  human  mind  in  its  search  for  distinction 
abound.  Here  the  routes  travelled  to  the  notoriety  of  fame  are 
as  various  as  propliet  could  predict  from  the  waywardness  of 
man.  Some  have  toiled,  and  often,  oh,  how  cheerlessly,  in  the 
abysses  of  physical  nature,  to  arrest  her  laws  and  bring  them 
up  to  light ;  others  have  wasted  strength  of  frame  and  head  in 
passing  through  the  mazes  of  metaphysical  labyrinths  ; — and 
then  there  have  been  those  wdio,  spurning  the  attractions  of 
earths,  have  soared  on  the  wings- of  mathematical  science  to 
Heaven's  fields  of  radiance.  But  there  is  another  class  of  dis- 
tinctionists,  and  it  would  be  disrespect  to  pass  them  by — the 
class  of  operative  religionists.  IMany  of  its  members  leagued  to 
a  more  than  a  common  share  of  the  curse  entailed  on  the  chil- 
dren of  Adam,  toiling  in  the  '^  sweat  of  their  brow,"  and  pack 
horses  to  the  interior  spirit,  have  drudged  through  the  *'  Hebrew 
and  Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  to  make  themselves  in  the  solemn 
words  of  Byron, — 

'•'  To  make  themselves  a  keakfll  monument ! 
The  wreck  of  old  opinions  ;" 

to  dissever  the  ties  of  religious  unity,  and  fling  man  a  wanderer 
without  haven  or  beacon  light  on  the  limitless  sea  of  indefinite 
creed  and  indefinite  religion. 

To  illustrate  the  few  remarks  now  made  by  reference  to  names 
in  the  various  walks  of  intellectual  pursuits,  would  be  straying 
from  the  goal  we  have  in  view.  We  must  restrict  ourselves  to 
a  more  limited  field — that  of  polemic  fame.  Here,  too,  there  is 
a  wide  expanse;  and,  with  our  readers  permission,  we  shall  con- 
tract it.  The  controversial  heroes  of  the  olden  time  shall  be 
passed  by ; — the  names  of  the  mighty  dead  which  were  once 
No.  5.-9 


66 

like  bannerets  in  the  field  of  religious  strife,  may  slumber  in 
their  vellum  repose  ; — a  worm  eaten  folio  shall  not  be  disturbed 
to  extract  a  single  agnomen.  Our  ambition  is  limited  to  one — 
to  Dr.  Brownlee,  a  preacher  in  the  Middle  Dutch  Church.  His 
name  in  itself  a  host,  is  more  than  ample  matter  to  impart  the 
lustre  of  embellishment  to  our  preceding  remarks.  His  letters, 
and,  oh,  ye  members  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church,  his  powers 
of  ratiocination  !  Theological  in  his  matter,  logical  in  his  proof, 
invincible  in  his  arguments,  rigid  in  his  references,  definite  in 
his  terms,  classical  in  his  phrases,  solid  in  his  Scripture  texts, 
happy  in  his  quotations, — did  the  old  Stagyrite  return  to  earth 
he  would  shun  an  encounter. — Gentle  in  his  words,  courteous  in 
his  allusions,  fastidious  in  his  compliments,  would  Homer's 
Thersites  wear  the  wreath  of  victory  7 

"Et  \itula  Tu  dignus  ct  inc." 

From  your  challenge  and  first  letters,  from  your  logic  and 
your  matter,  it  was  obvious,  Eev.  Sir,  that  you  were  an  erudite 
of  no  common  mould,  of  no  common  cast  in  structure  of  mind. 
You  evidently  lurked  after  the  distinction  of  report  and  martyr- 
dom of  fame.  But  if  a  doubt  could  have  remained,  or  a  misgiv- 
ing exist  to  complete  the  fulness  of  proof,  there  are  data  in  the 
wildest  luxuriance  of  abundance  in  your  last  extraordinary  pro- 
duction, to  remove  all  suspicion.  You  are  ambitious  of  renown, 
fond  of  the  public  gaze.  Blame  not  the  structure  of  the  pedestal 
on  which  we  shall  fix  you. 

Your  first  letters  you  said  were  "  skirmislmig,^^ — the  last, 
then,  of  course,  is  serious  conflict.  Your  first  letters  are  merely 
illustrative  of  your  powers  of  ''' squinting f^ — the  last— it  is 
hoped  we  do  not  bear  false  witness — the  last  is  direct,  unerring 
vision ;  the  completion  of  cool,  logical,  and-  theological  argu- 
ment. To  aid  our  readers  and  specially  the  members  of  the 
Middle  Dutch  Church,  in  the  application  of  this  direct  and  un- 
erring vision, — the  demands  expressed  in  our  former  letters,  are 
a  THIRD  time  repeated.  You,  Rev.  Sir,  have  not  yet  answered 
them.  Excu£e  the  iteration.  Pardon  our  adherence  to  single- 
ness of  object.  "Tell  us  how  you  know  the  Bible  to  be  the 
word  of  God  ?  How  do  you  know  which  books  were  written  by 
Divine  inspiration  7  Does  the  Bible  contain  the  whole  word  of 
God,  or  does  it  not?"  Have  these  steps  in  the  logical  order  of 
dependency  been  solved  9  The  following  passage  from  your  let- 
ter in  which  there  was  to  have  been  no  "skirmishing,"  is  your 
reply.  '*  Afe  have,''^  says  Doctor  Brownlee,  "  in  our  last  two  let- 
ters, in  the  briefest  manner  possible,  established  the  truth  of  the 
authenticity,  and  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scriptures;  and, 
thence,  showed  that  this  evidence  is  the  2)erfect  evidence  of  the 


67 

i7ifaUibility  of  the  Bible  :  in  wliicli  the  Holy  Ghost  as  the  infal- 
lible judge,  speaks  to  us,  cLc.  This  also,  decides  the  canoni- 
calness  of  each  of  the  books,  which  constitute  the  entire  number 
of  the  holy  canon  of  Scripture.  Every  book  established  by  the 
evidence  referred  to,  is  of  that  canon,  and  every  book  which  is 
not  sustained  by  this  evidence  is  not  to  be  received  into  the 
canon." 

This,  then,  is  your  cool,  logical,  and  theological  answer.  Con- 
scious of  your  defects,  aware  of  the  inferences  which  must  have 
been  made  by  minds  in  the  slightest  degree  capable  of  reflec- 
tion, and  to  cheer  the  drooping  expectations  of  the  Middle 
Dutch  Church,  you  thus  wrote  at  the  close  of  your  letter,  No.  2. 
"One  word  to  my  friends,  this  I  call  only  skirmishing ;  for  I 
am  j)ressed  for  want  of  time  ; — I  propose  to  begin  the  contro- 
versy with  my  learned  opponents,  soon,  in  good  earnest. ^^  You 
admit  the  controversy  to  have  been  commenced  in  "  good  ear- 
nest." What  are  your  arguments'?  Where  do  they  exist'? 
Mark  the  Calvinicitij  of  the  stratagem.  You  refer  to  your  skir- 
mishing letters  for  the  answers  to  our  queries  !  In  the  records 
of  controversial  logic  can  any  thing  be  discovered  so  utterly 
puerile,  so  recklessly  impotent,  so  absolutely  wanting  in  respect 
to  Calvin's  Creed,  your  station  as  a  preacher  in  the  Middle 
Dutch  Church,  and  your  character  as  a  scholar  ?  In  your  '■^good 
earnesV^  letter  you  refer  for  the  proof  of  your  rule  of  faith  to 
the  preceding  letters  where  no  arguments  exist ;  and,  in  the  pre- 
ceding letters,  where  you  admit  you  were  but  skirmishing,  you 
palliate  your  inattention  to  argument  by  the  promise  of  display 
in  your  good  earnest  letter,  where  neither  argument  nor  proof  are 
given.  Were  it  not  reducing  you  to  the  innocent  simplicity  of 
infancy,  we  should  consign  you  to  the  nursery  to  be  rocked  to 
the  old  lullably,  "see  saw,  Margery  Daw."  Is  it  thus  a  man 
acquainted  with  the  '^Hebrew  and  Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost" 
establishes  his  Rule  of  Faith.  Is  this  the  outpouring  of  the 
Holy  Spirit's  favorite.     If  this  be  logical  and  theological  reason^ 

"  It  is  such  stufi' 
As  dreams  arc  made  of." 

No  answer,  no  proof,  in  our  skirmishing  letters ;  nothing  but 
assertion  and  reference  in  your  good  earnest  letter; — What  is 
the  inevitable  inference?  You  are  unable  to  solve  our  queries. 
To  greet  you  in  your  own  words, — "  our  enlightened  community 
needs  no  comments  on  this."     '^  So  much  for  Buckingham  !" 

Your  ascension  on  the  scale  of  logical  worth  and  distinct  on 
is  now  evidently,  seconded  by  our  remarks  on  the  proofs  you 
have  given  of  your  Rule  of  Faith.  It  is  hoped  they  will  capti- 
vate the  approval  of  your  friends  ;  those  friends  whose  fears  you 


68 

sought  to  allay,  whose  sympathies  you  desired  to  enlist,  when 
you  made  the  strange  admission  of  skirmishing.  Your  prowess 
has  been  brilliant,  your  heroism  transcendant,  your  argumenta 
tive  procedure  irresistible.  You  struggle  hard  with  necessity 
But,  should  your  achievements  not  dispel  apprehensions  of  your 
ultimate  success,  or  lull  suspicions  of  the  chances  of  future  tri- 
umph, still  we  would  entreat  them  to  visit  you  with  commisera- 
tion. Judging,  however,  from  your  past  efforts,  there  is  as  yet  no 
favorable  omen  of  a  brightening  change.  The  vista  of  futurity  is 
dark  with  storm.  As  a  pledge  of  shelter  in  the  closing  catastrophe 
of  the  polemic  strife,  it  were  well  the  kindly  affections  of  their 
hearts  were  called  into  action  as  soon  as  possible.  Facility  of 
performance  is  aided  much  by  early  practice  ;  and  the  ease  of 
habit  is  free  from  those  harsh  breaks  which  untutored  and  undis- 
ciplined minds  display.  Should  the  result  be  what  is  now  anti- 
cipated— gloomy  and  disastrous  to  the  champion  of  the  Calvin- 
istic  creed,  the  words  of  St.  Paul  are  submitted  to  their  thoughts  : 
"Charity  never  falleth  away,  vrhether  tongues  cease,  or  know- 
ledge  be  destroyed."  1  Cor.  xiii.  8.  You  know,  Rev.  Sir,  from 
the  *'  Hebrew  and  Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  that  "  the  tribula- 
tions of  the  just  are  many" — and  that  '•  he  who  exalteth  himself 
shall  be  humbled."  Now,  if  the  rays  of  pity  shoot  out  from  the 
hearts  of  your  "/ne/if/5,"  warm,  refreshing,  and  vivifying  as 
from  us,,  the  tear  that  weeps  over  your  fall  will  blend  with  the 
smile  that  consoles.  This,  if  not  of  oblivion,  will  be  the  symbol 
of  forgiveness ;  and  then  you  may  entreat  them  in  the  rapturous 
words  of  the  Psalmist, — •'  You  are  my  refuge  from  the  trouble 
which  hath  encompassed  me  ;  my  joy,  deliver  me  from  f/iemthat 
surround  me."     Ps.  xxxi.  7. 

But,  Rev.  Sir,  there  is  an  obtuseness  of  intellect  that  often 
resists  tiid  most  palpable  evidence,  and,  possibly  you  may  labor 
under  this  affliction.  It  may,  perhaps,  be  imagined  the  piety  of 
your  friends  and  the  members  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church  is  not 
yet  needed.  I'he  following  passage  from  your  ''good  earnesV 
letter  claims  their  solicitude ;  and,  when  added  to  your  see  saw 
probation  of  your  Rule  of  Faith,  it  the  tear  of  pity  do  not  flow 
for  a  hapless  favorite  of  the  interior  spirit,  their  hearts  must  be 
callous, — untrained  in  the  charity  of  St.  Paul.  The  rudest  intel- 
lect, not  blinded  by  the  prejudice  of  party  zealotry,  will,  how- 
ever, appreciate  its  worth.  "  You  have  no  right,^^  you  affirm, 
"  to  pronounce  sentence  on  one  of  my  arguments,  you  are  neither 
judge  nor  jury  :  it  belongs  to  the  Christian  public,  to  pronounce 
finally  on  mine  and  your  arguments."  What,  worthy  and  excel- 
lent preacher  in  the  Middle  Dutch  Church,  we  possess  no  right 
to  pronounce  sentence  on  one  of  your  arguments  !     What,  not 


69 

even  a  squinting  permission  allowed!     What,  not  even  the  per- 
mission of  private  judgment !     Your  reasons,  llcv.  Sir,  for  this 
inquisitorial  decree'/     Is  it   because  the  interior  spirit  does  not 
speak  through  your   letters'?     Are  the  "  Hebrew  and  Creek  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,"  less  gifted  with  infallibility  than  your  writings'? 
Is  it  impiety  ^'  to  pronounce  sentence,"  is  it   impiety  to  aid  the 
'^christian  public,"  in  pronouncing  sentence  on  the  lucubrations, 
non-arguments,  non-proofs,  obloquies,  vituperative  allusions,  and 
discursive   declamations  of  Dr.  Brownlee's  "  sJdrmishing"  and 
^' good  earnest  IctiGYs  V     What,   the  Holy  Scriptures  less  privi- 
leged than    your  crude   and   proofless  effusions  !     There    have 
been   inquisitors  less  wanting  in  the  attributes  of  severe  mercy 
than  you.     We  have  7io  right  to  pronounce  sentence  on  one  of 
your   arguments ; — and   this,  shade  of   Geneva's    Apostle,  you 
term  "  Protestant  lesson  and  logic  /"     Be  it  so, — we  concede  it ; 
and,  in  the  fulness  of  our  hearts,  and  gratitude  for  the  candor  of 
your  words  of  truth,  we  receive  your  admission,  that  "  we  are  by 
our  habits,  of  course,  strangers  to  this  Protestant  lesson  and 
logic."     Excuse  our  wayw^ardness,  while  we  indulge  in  our  old 
habits.     Visit  us  with  clemency,   most  rigid  inquisitor, — for   we 
are   most  rebelliously  disposed   to  mock  your   despotism,    and 
laugh  at  your  assumption  of  authority.     The  right  you  would 
invest  in    all  to  judge  of  the  Hebrew   and  Greek  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  we  will  assume,  pardon  us,  against  your  *' Protestant  les- 
son and  logic,"  and  arguments, — not  one  but  all. 

You  have  been  repeatedly  asked,  Rev.  Sir,  for  the  proofs  of 
your  Rule  of  Faith;  but  to  the  present  instant,  you  have  studi- 
ously, designedly,  kept  aloof  from  all  rational  argument  on  the 
real  question  ;  to  the  present  instant  a  proof,  in  the  most  remote 
sense  satisfactory,  has  not  been  given  by  you.  In  no  rational 
sense  have  you  proved  the  Bible  to  be  the  word  of  God.  On  this 
we  insist,  and  i^iZ/ insist.  In  your  letter.  No.  2,  you  say:  "/ 
deem  the  ride  to  be  of  infinite  importance,  I  have  not  declined 
the  discussion  of  it.  I /ia?;e  discussed  it."  We  are  ignorant  of 
the  import  you  attach  to  the  term — discussion.  But  we  know  it 
is  not  l'>roofj  since  the  shadow  of  logical  proof  is  not  to  be  found 
in  your  discussion.  If  the  rule  be  oi  infinite  importance,  as  you 
admit,  why  not  establish  the  basis  on  which  it  rests, — why  not 
prove  the  Bible  to  be  the  word  of  God  7  Again,  in  your  letter, 
No.  2,  you  write  thus  gently  :  "  But,  I  am  not  tenacious  ;  I  yield 
to  courtesy  ;  qua  via  ducit,  sequar.  Since  you  insist  on  it,  that 
the  rule  shall  be  discussed  first,  even  so  heit:  only  let  none  of  us 
propose  a  retreaty  Here  then  is  a  promise  urbanely  expressed 
to  the  ear,  but,  oh,  how  broken  to  the  hope  !  The  Bible  is  not 
yet  proved  to  be   the  word  of  God,  and  yet,  in   the   same  letter 


70 

from  which  the  preceding  passage  is  taken,  you  yoke  the  inte- 
rior spirit  to  the  interpretation  of  five  Scripture  texts  to  prove 
the  infallibility  of  the  Bible.  This  is  a  ludicrous  specimen  of 
the  nursery  see  saw  logic;  or,  to  dignify  it  with  a  scholastic 
appellation,  this  is  a  happy  illustration  of  the  vicious  circle. 
The  interior  spirit,  is  tasked  to  prove  the  infallibility  of  the 
Bible,  and  the  Bible  is  used  to  prove  the  right  of  the  interior 
spirit.  You  insist  on  the  Bible  being  the  only  Rule  of  Faith  ; 
that  each  individual,  no  matter  how  gross  or  uncultivated  in 
mind,  possesses  the  right  to  adopt  that  sense  of  Scripture  which 
appears  to  him  the  best  according  with  truth  ;  that  God  has  pro- 
mised the  illumination  necessary  to  discover  this  accordance 
with  truth,  and  yet  all  this  you  pretend  to  prove  from  Scripture 
texts,  ere  the  Scripture  is  proved  to  be  the  v^'ord  of  God  !  Can 
any  procedure  be  more  absurd — more  evidently  defective  in 
argumentative  precision*?  Is  not  this  the  vicious  circle?  The 
preacher  in  the  Middle  Dutch  Church  will  obstinately  pretend, 
that  the  Catholic,  by  admitting  the  church  to  judge  of  the  sense 
of  Scripture,  invests  it  with  an  authority  superior  to  that  of 
God,  yet  he  will  concede  this  authority  to  each  individual !  We 
would  intreat  the  "Christian  public"  to  note  this  inconsistency. 
But  you,  Rev.  Sir,  and  every  Calvinist  professing  adhesion  to 
the  principle  on  which  your  rule  of  faith  is  founded — the  right 
of  private  interpretation  of  Scripture,  contradict  this  principle 
and  this  Rule  of  Faith  by  your  conduct.  You  do  not  adhere  to 
the  Sacred  Scriptures  solely;  you  add  to  them,  and  this  was  ob- 
served in  our  last  letter,  but  you  found  it  not  your  interest  to 
grapple  with  the  unyielding  force  of  the  remark.  You  shunned 
it  in  the  spirit  of  crafty  Calvinicity.  Why  are  there,  we  demand 
of  you,  if  the  Scriptures  solely  be  your  rule  of  faith,  why  are 
there  catechisms,  professions  of  faith,  synodical  decisions  ^  Why 
condemn  the  Anabaptists,  the  Arminians,  Socinians?  Why 
did  your  holy  founder,  John  Calvin,  illuminate  the  streets  of 
Geneva  with  the  funeral  pile  of  the  unfortunate  Servetus  *?  All, 
equally  as  you,  may  pray,  and  invoke  the  aid  of  the  inferioi  spi- 
rit to  interpret  the  Holy  Scripture;  and  all,  equally  as  you,  may 
exult  in  the  truth  of  their  interpretation.  Will  you  establish  a 
monopoly  of  trade,  and  fix  a  tariff  rate  on  the  interpretation  of 
others'?  Is  the  Middle  Dutch  Church  the  only  tabernacle  of 
the  interior  spirit?  Does  not  the  "Lord  of  Conscience"  deign 
to  dwell  in  the  temple  of  the  Unitarian  ^  Do  you  and  the  Uni- 
tarian agree  on  the  number  of  the  articles  of  faith  ^  If  you  do 
not,  why  is  the  Unitarian  in  error  *?  He  professes  as  sincere 
respect  as  you  for  the  Scriptures ;  he  prays  and  invokes  the 
assistance  of  the  "Lord  of  the  Conscience."  Why,  then,  should 


n 

not  the  Lord  of  the  Conscience  accept  the  invitation  :  and  why 
should  not  the  interpretation  of  the  Unitarian  be  tlie  very  essence 
of  truth  '?  His  authority  is  equal  to  yours  ;  and  the  basis  of  his 
system  of  faith,  derived  from  the  principles  of  your  Rule  of 
Faith,  is  founded  on  more  logical  and  more  consistent  inferences. 
Do,  Rev.  Sir,  intreat  your  interior  spirit  to  evolve  the  difiiculties 
and  consequences  embodied  in  the  preceding  hints.  It  is  hoped 
the  *' Christian  public,"  and  specially  the  members  of  the  Mid- 
dle Dutch  Church  will  attend  to  your  explanations.  We,  of 
course,  not  being  trained  to  ''the  Protestant  lesson  and  logic, 
have  ?io  right  to  pronounce  sentence;  we  are  neither  judge  nor 
jury!" 

Having  shown  the  futility  of  your  reasoning  in  establishing 
your  rule  of  faith,  the  only  topic,  which,  in  strictness,  should 
liave  occupied  your  attention,  we  shall  now  notice  the  serious 
deficiencies  in  your  last  "good  earnest"  letter.  It  is,  we  must 
say,  a  strange  blending  of  matter  absolutely  irrelevant  to  the 
primary  subject  under  dispute.  You  adduced  a  few  texts  of 
Scripture  to  establish  its  infallibility,  and  this,  be  it  remembered, 
ere  the  Bible  was  shown  to  be  the  word  of  God.  The  conclu- 
sions deduced  from  your  texts  were  proved  to  be  illogical,  hence 
they  are  useless  in  argument.  You,  Rev.  Sir,  have  not  refuted 
our  explanations  of  these  texts.  They,  as  yet,  exist  in  their 
strict  force.     Our  readers  are   referred  to  our  letter  No.  2. 

You  are  evidently  not  familiar  with  the  writings  of  your  "  hero 
of  the  Reformation,"  INIartin  Luther  :  your  denial  of  our  charges 
relatively  to  his  rejection  of  the  Epistle  of  St.  James,  6lq,.  is 
proclaimed  in  a  most  dogmatical  form,  yet  it  is  not  true.  We 
repeat  your  words,  that  the  members  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church, 
and  the  "Christian  public"  may  appreciate  your  dilection  of 
truth.  "You  gravely  [that  is,  we]  asserted  that  Luther  rejected 
the  epistle  of  St.  James,  Hebrews,  &c.  Tins  I  solemnly 
DENY  ;  and  every  theologian  knows  that  your  assertion  is/aZse/" 
Patience,  gentle  Doctor, — suppress  the  ebullitions  of  your  inte- 
rior spirit; — this  matter  does  not  depend  on  the  "Hebrew  and 
Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost!"  Was  Luther  "half  a  monk"  when 
he  wrote  the  work,  De  Capt.  Babyl.  If  you  have  read  it,  you 
must  have  noted  the  following  words  :  "Si  uspiam  deliratum  est, 
viz,  de  extrema  unctione,  et  etiam  si  esset  epistola  Jacobi, 
dicerem  non  licere  apostolum  sacramentum  instituere."  "If  the 
madness  of  folly  were  ever  displayed,  that  is,  in  reference  to 
extreme  unction,  though  it  were  the  Epistle  of  James,  I  would 
say  it  was  not  in  the  power  of  an  apostle  to  institute  a  sacra- 
ment."    In  the  original    edition  of  Luther's  works  printed  at 


72 

Jena,  this  canonical  Epistle  is  insulted  with  the  terms  dry,  chaffy, 
(straminosa,)  and  unworthy  of  the  apostolic  spirit.  The  Epistle 
of  St.  Jude  is  called  ^^superfluous  and  useless,^''  superfluem  et 
inutilem.  For  farther  information  we  refer  you  to  the  first  edi- 
tion of  Luther's  German  New  Test,  and  its  thousand  errors, 
published  in  the  year  1522.  When  you  have  read  it  your  inte- 
rior spirit  will  be  enlightened,  your  tone  of  dogmatism  subdued, 
and  your  ignorance  instructed.  To  enhance  the  estimate  of 
your  ^^  hero  of  the  Reformation,"  we  present  you  with  the  judg- 
ment of  Zuinglius  of  this  eminent  Biblimastix ; — Zuinglius,  it 
is  presumed,  is  one  of  your  theologians.  *'  Thou  dost  corrupt 
the  word  of  God,  Luther.  Thou  art  seen  to  be  a  manifest  and 
common  perverter  of  the  Scriptures."  Zuing.  Op.  Tom.  2.  Lib. 
de  Sacr.  ad  Luth.  But,  possibly,  you  may  reject  the  authority 
of  Zuinglius  as  you  do  that  of  Mosheim  alluding  to  your  favorite 
*'  primitive  christians,"  the  Albigenses.  Receive,  then,  the  infal- 
lible evidence  of  Luther  himself  a^'ainst  Luther;  and,  on  the 
next  Sabbath,  ^'  with  divine  permission,"  present  it  to  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church,  as  a  happy  effort  in  the  art 
of  interpolation.  Li  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  iii.  33, 
there  exists  the  following  text :  "  We  conclude  that  a  man  is  jus- 
tified by  faith,  without  the  deeds  of  the  law."  After  the  word 
faith,  Luther  adds  the  word  alone.  Does  your  hero  of  the  Refor- 
mation express  regret  for  his  corruption  of  the  text  9  No,  he 
defends  it,  and  his  defence  is  in  terms  of  the  most  gross,  profane, 
and  insulting  arrogance.  Mark  the  temper  of  his  language  : 
*'  Sic  volo,  sic  jubeo.  Sit  pro  ratione  voluntas.  Lutherus  ita 
vult,  et  ait  se  doctorem  esse,  super  omnes  doctores  in  toto  papat. 
Propterea  debet  vox  sola,  in  meo  Novo  Testamento  manere, 
*  ^  "^  ^  etiani  si  omnes  papasini  ad  insaniam  rcdigantur, 
tamen  eam  inde  non  tollent.  P^nitet  me  quod  non  addiderim 
et  illas  duas  voces  omnibus  et  omnium,  viz.  sine  omnibus  oj^eribus 
omnium  legum.  5th  vol.  of  Luther's  works,  page  141,  original 
Jena  edition.  As  the  import  of  this  modest  and  inspired  extract, 
though  not  in  the  "  Hebrew  and  Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  may 
be  interesting  to  the  members  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church,  we 
present  it  to  them  in  English  :  "This  is  my  will,  this  is  my  com- 
mand. Let  my  will  be  reason.  So  Luther  commands,  and  he 
proclaims  himself  a  doctor  pre-eminent  above  all  the  doctors  of 
the  entire  papacy.  Therefore  the  word  alone  shall  remain  in  my 
Nev/  Testament  ^'  ^  ^  though  all  the  popish  asses  should 
run  rabid,  they  shall  not  remove  it. 

I  regret  the  words  without  all  and  of  all  were  not  intro- 
duced ;  namely,  "  without  all  the  deeds  of  all  the  laws."  In  the 
way  of  additional  strcngti),    to    prove   that  Luther  rejected  the 


73 

Epistle  of  St.  James,  you  are  referred  to  a  Protestant  authority, 
Buck's  Theological  Dictionary,  article,  Lutliorans. 

We  now  interrogate  vou,  did  we  allirm  truth,  when  it  was  said 
Lutlier  rejected  a  portion  of  the  Scriptures?  Did  we  make  a 
*'  powerless  attempt  to  injure  the  hero  of  the  Reformation  V^ 
Was  Luther  '•  half  a  monk;"  a  thorough  divine  when  he  wrote 
the  preceding  edifying  passage  ?  There  is,  also,  another  im- 
portant question  to  be  asked  ;  it  is  repeated  from  our  last  letter, 
because  the  whispering  of  the  interior  spirit  warned  you  to  evade 
it — by  falsehood  and  a  "solemn  denial."  Was  Luther  right  in 
rejecting  a  part  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  you  receive  ;  are  you  in 
error  while  admitting  what  he  rejects  ']  Is  Luther  in  error;  are 
you  right.  The  "  Christian  public"  await  your  answer.  Let 
there  be  no  squinting;  no  plea  of  '-skirmishing,"  to  cheat  the 
hopes  of  your  friends. 

The  mode  of  disproof  adopted  by  you  against  our  allusions 
to  "  honest  John  Wesley,"  is  new  in  the  art  of  criticism.  It 
must  be  noted.  "  1  have  7iot  doubt,^^  you  say,  "  that  you  have 
misquoted  honest  John."  This,  then,  is  sufficient  warranty  to 
reject  an  evidence,  because,  "  you  have  no  doubt !"  Your  mere 
doubt,  however  must  not  be  admitted  to  a  higher  order  of  critical 
evidence  than  your  "  solemn  denial"  of  our  testimony  of  Luther. 
We  at  once  subvert  it  by  a  reference  to  the  preface  to  "honest 
John's"  sermons,  and,  as  we  need  not  the  interference  of"  Doc- 
tor Bangs  of  the  Christian  Advocate"  in  quoting  a  simple  pas- 
sage from  Wesley's  writings,  you  are  referred  to  the  learned 
Doctor  to  explain  the  difficulties  involved  in  your  rule  of  faith 
by  the  admission  of  Wesley.  The  preface  from  which  the  pas- 
sai^e  was  selected  was  written  by  honest  John  himself  in  the 
year  1771.  You  will  find  it  in  the  6th  vol.  of  Harper's  edition 
of  his  works,  printed  in  this  city,  year  1S26.  But  we,  receive 
a  little  more  truth  stamped  with  the  authority  of  your  "  good 
man,"  "  honest  John"  against  the  religion  you  profess — Calvin- 
ism. The  founder  of  Methodism  was,  of  course,  seraphically 
intimate  with  the  dove — breathing  of  the  "  interior  spirit." 
Attend,  Rev.  Sir,  to  the  convictions  they  wrought;  they  are  thus 
expressed  in  the  "  Minutes  of  Conversations  between  the  Rev. 
Messrs.  John  and  Charles  Wesley,  dsc.  June  25th,  1771." 

Quest.  5.  What  was  the  rise  of  Methodism,  so  called  ? 

*/9ns.  In  1729,  two  young  men  reading  the  Bible,  saw  they 
could  not  be  saved  without  holiness,  followed  after  it,  and  in- 
cited others  so  to  do.  They  saw  likewise  that  men  are  justified 
before  they  are  sanctified;  but  still  holiness  was  their  point. 
God  then  thrust  them,  utterly  against  their  will,  to  raise  a  holy 
people.     When  Satan  could  no  otherwise  hinder  this  he  threw 

10 


74 

Calvinism  in  their  way  P^  Here  then,  Dr.  Brownlee,  and  ye 
members  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church,  Calvinism,  in  the  opinion 
of  '^  honest  John,"  is  the  agent  used  by  Satan  himself  to  pre- 
vent holiness  I ! 

Again,  from  the  '^good  man's"  journal  of  the  year  1773. 
"Monday,  Nov.  1,"  I  set  out  for  Norfolk,  and  came  to  Lynn 
vi^hile  the  congregation  was  waiting  for  me.  Here  was  once  a 
prospect  of  doing  much  good  ;  but  it  has  almost  vanished  away. 
Calvinism  breaking  in  upon  them,  has  torn  the  infant  society  in 
pieces  !"  Here  the  "good  man"  who  could  interpret  the  '*He- 
brevv  and  Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  says  that  Calvinism  pre- 
vented the  "  prospect  of  doing  much  good  !"  Honest  and  sera- 
phic John,  thy  words  are  '*in  the  way"  of  Dr.  Brownlee's  interior 
spirit.     We  refer  him  to  Dr.  Bangs. 

You  assert  "  it  was  not  in  your  way  to  drag  in  the  name  of 
John  Wesley ;"  was  it  not  in  your  way  to  solve  the  difficulties 
introduced  into  the  dialogue  between  yourself  and  the  Arian 
cobler'?  You  left  the  cobler  to  "stick  to  his  last." — Why  not 
^^  squinV  at  the  difficulties  involved  in  our  remarks  on  the  Epis- 
tle of  St.  Barnabas  9  Are  the  authorities  of  Du  Pin  and  Doctor 
Lardner  "  in  your  way  9"     Were  they  "  half  monks'?" 

Considering  the  character  of  the  station  you  hold  in  the  Mid- 
dle Dutch  Church,  Vv^e  regret  the  irksome  and  painful   necessity 
imposed  on  us  to  note  so  frequently  your  "solemn  denials"  and 
utter  disregard  of  truth  ; — even  in  the  teeth  of  St.  Paul.     You 
say   you   have  visited   the  Philadelphia  Lunatic  Asylum, — this 
may  be  the  radical  cause  of  the  aberrations  of  your  intellect." 
*^Not    one  book,"  asserts   Dr.  Brownlee,  "not  one  sentence  o^ 
inspired  Scripture  is  known  to  be  lost."     Is  St.  Paul    an  autho- 
rity admitted  by  your  interior  spirit?     Pt.ead  his  words  from  the 
4th  chapter,  16th  verse,  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  :    "  And 
when  this  epistle  is  read  amongst  you,  cause  that  it  be  read  also 
in  the  Church  of  the  Laodiceans  ;  and  that  ye  likewise  read  the 
Epistle  from  Laodicea."     V\niere  is  the  Epistle   to  Laodicea  ^ 
In  the  Jirsf  Epistle  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Corinthians,  c.  5,  v.  6,  the 
words   are  ;  "   I  wrote  to  you  in  an  epistle,  not  to  keep  company 
with  fornicators." — The  epistle  of  St.  Paul  containing  the  words 
now  quoted,  is   i\\Q  first  to   the  Corinthians,  and  he  refers  to  an 
epistle   written   by  him  prior  to  this  first.  Where  is  it?     In  op- 
position to  this  glaring  and   invincible    evidence,  will   you  now 
recklessly  and  unblushingly  assert,    that  "  not  one  sentence   of 
inspired  scripture  is  known  to  be  lost  9"     We  recommend  you 
to  the  pity  of  the  members  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church  ;  to  the 
sympathies  of  the  "  christian  public  !" 

The  length  of  our  communications.  Rev.  Sir,   appear  to  dis- 
please you.  You  were  nearer  the  truth   had  you  attributed  your 


displeasure  to  our  arguments  and  tlic  elucidation  of  your  rule  of 
faith.    It  involves  you  in   the  most  illogicnl  contradictions,  insu- 
perable difficulties,  and  in   "  solemn  denials"    against  the    most 
evident  truths, — against  St.  Paul   himself.  The  length  must,  in 
fairness,  be  attributed  to  you.      Had  you  adhered  to  the  proba- 
tion of  your  rule  of  faith,  we  should   have  been  brief,  concise. 
Had  you  adhered  to  the  logical  order  of  procedure,   and  solved 
our  queries  logically  and  theologically,  without  submitting  to 
the   whisperings  of  your  ^'  interior  spirit,"  the  grand  basis  on 
which  our  future  discussions  should  rest,  would  have  now  been 
established.     But  ho  is  more  than  earthly  who  can  stay  your 
deflections  of  vision, — your  squintings.     You  admitted  the  infi- 
nite importance   of  your  rule  of  faith,  and  yet   you  introduce  a 
thousand  topics  remote  from  the   subject  under  debate.     Your 
views,  your  intentions,  are   obvious.     Our  arguments,  and  illus- 
trations of  your  rule  of  faith,  you  avoid  ;  and,    then  to  conceal 
your  infirmities,  irrelevant  matter  is  brought  into  view.     The 
uneducated  and  prejudiced  minds  of  the  Calvinistic  party  are 
cheated  into  a  high  estimate  of  your  prowess  as  a  scholar  and 
disputant.     If  a  single  topic  introduced  by   you,  no  matter  how 
indefinitely  distant  from  the  real  point  at  issue,  be  not  met,  you 
are  cheered   as  victor,  and  seated   in  a  triumphal  car.     This  is 
the  secret  of    your  polemic  conduct  up  to  the  present  time. 
Thus  your  "christian  public"  are  gulled.     This  is  the  artifice 
of  your   Calvinicity  with  the    members  of   the  Middle  Dutch 
Church.     The    import  of   these  few  remarks  will,  we  are  sure, 
with  all  judicious  readers,   be  admitted  as  a  sufficient   plea  for 
the  length  of  our  communications.     Therefore,  let  us  onv/ard. 
We  have  fully  proved,  that  Protestants  have  been  obliged  to 
admit  of  Tradition  and  Church  authority,  in  order  to  admit   of 
Scripture  itself.      We  have  quoted  Field  and  Hooker,  in  our  last 
letter,  and  they  distinctly  tell  us,  that  we  know  the  Scriptures 
only  through  the  medium  of  the   Catholic  Church.     The  vera- 
city, then,  Kev.  Sir,  of  her  Tradition,  is  the  corner  stone  of  your 
faith,  and  to  her  testimony,  you  must  give  implicit  credit,  before 
you  can  believe  a  single  sentence  of  the  Bible.     We  assure  you, 
Rev.  Sir,  that  the  thinking  public,  will  regard  you  with  a  suspi- 
cious eye,  when  they  see  you  attempting  to  prove  the  inspiration 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures  by  their  own  reasonableness  and  charac- 
ters of  divine  wisdom,  in  order  to  evade  the  authority  of  the 
Church  of  Christ.     Allow  us  to  ask  you,  whether  it  is  by  these 
characters,  you  have  discovered  the  Song  of  Solomon  to  be 
inspired  %     Td  deny  that  the    Catholic  Church  "  had  not  the 
honor  of  giving  authority  to  this  Song,"  would,  Sir,  to  use  your 
own  words,  bo  **  sheer  knavery,  or  a  derangement  in  the   moral 


76 

faculty.''^     It  now  remains  with    you  to   show,  that  the  same 
authority,  which  in  the  first  ages  of  the  Church,  discriminated 
and  proscribed  so  many  false  Gospels,  has    lost  the  right    of 
judging  and  proscribing,  the  false  interpretations,  that  have  and 
may  be  given  to  the  true  Gospels.     We  hold  it  to  be  a  palpable 
contradiction,  to  receive  from  the  hands  of  the  Church  the  book 
of  the  Gospel,  and   to  ascribe  to  it,  a  false  meaning  which  the 
Church  reprobates.     The  tradition  then  of  the  Church  must  ac- 
company and  explain  the  sense  of  the  Gospel.  We  have  already 
cited  the  authority  of    the    learned    Doctor    Hare,  Protestant 
Bishop  of  Chester.     His  words  will  open  the  eyes  of  many  who 
have  been  deluded  by  your  mischievous'  Rule  of  Faith.      ''  The 
orthodox  f^iith,"  says  the  learned   Prelate,  '•  does   not  depend 
upon  the  Scriptures  considered  absolutely  in  themselves,  but  as 
explained  by  Catholic  Tradition.^^     And  here.  Rev.  Doctor,  we 
call  your  attention  to  the  words  of  the  famous  Dudith,   in  his 
Epistle  to  Beza :  "If   that    be  the    truth,  which    the   ancient 
Fathers  have,   with  one  accord,  professed,  it  must  be  owned, 
that  this  truth,  will  be  wholly  on  the  papists'  side."     See  Brere- 
ly's  Protestant  Apology,  Tract  1.  Sec.  3.    Now,  Rev.  Sir,  as  the 
most  learned  Protestants  acknowledge,    that   we   have  the  Holy 
Scriptures  on  the  authority  of  the  Catholic  Church,  nay,  on  the 
authority  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  for  Dudith  says,  that 
all  the  ancient  Fathers   are  on  •'  the  side  of  the  papists ;"  and 
your  favorite,  Middleton,  says,  "that    he  pities  the    Protestants 
when  he  sees  them  struggling  to  reconcile  the  Fathers  to  the 
reformation."     Have  you   not  made  a  distinction    without  a  dif- 
ference, between  the  Catholic  Church  and  the  Roman   Catholic 
Church  ?     It  is  the  impossibility  of  reconciling  those  great  lights 
of  Christianity  to  the  Reformation,  that  drew  on  them  the  disre- 
spect of  such  preachers  as   you,   and  of  which   the  celebrated 
Warburton    bitterly   complains  in   his  Julian  I.     "A  sovereign 
contempt  for   the  authority  of  the  Fathers    is  what  now-a-days 
makes  a  Protestant  in  fashion,  but  this  is  prejudicial  to  religion 
and  also  to   learning."     Pity  he    had  not  seen  Dr.    Brownlee's 
"  squints"  on   the    Protestant  Rule  of  Faith.     He  would  have 
been  opposed  by    the  authority  of  Chillingvvorth,  whose  words, 
as  quoted  by  Dr.  Brownlee,  are  subversive  of  the  Christian  reli- 
gion.    If  they  have   any  bearing  on   the  point  in   debate,  they 
deny  the  right  of  the  Church  of  God   to  direct  the  consciences 
of  men,  and  to  keep  them  to  her  own  interpretation  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures.     Recollect,  Rev.  Sir,  that  Christ  promised  to  teach 
his  church  all  truth ;   that  he  himself  would  remain  with  her  to 
the  end   of  the  world.     Recollect  that  St.  Paul  calls  her  the 
**  Pillar  and  the  ground  of  truth,"  and  it  is  on  this  very  account, 


77 

that  the  Church  says  to  you,  Right  learned  Doctor,  "  That  Bible 
which  you  do  not  understand  is  abused  by  you.      You  pervert  it 
to  your  destruction,  by  preterring  tlie  rude  vagaries  of  your  own 
brain  to  my  sense  of  it.    Sit  down  at  the  feet  of  your  old  mother, 
and  learn    from  her  what  she  has  been    taught   by  the   spirit  of 
truth.      If,  like  the    soul   in  the  Canticles,  you  know  not  where 
the  Bridegroom    feedeth,    'get  tliee  forth  by   the   steps   of  the 
flocks,  and  feed  thy  kids  by  the  tenls  of  the  shepherds.'  "    "  But 
Holy   Mother,"  says  Dr    Brownlee,    "  this  is   contrary  to    what 
Paul  says,  2  Cor.   1  v.  24.     '  Not  for  that  we  have  dominion  over 
your  faith.'"     "  Not  at  all,  my  child,"   continues    the  Church, 
**  you  seem    not  to    understand    St.  l*aul.     He  was  accused   of 
claiming  a  tyrannical  and    arbitrary  dominion  over  the  faith   of 
the  Corinthians,  and  this  he  disclaimed  ;   but  recollect,  that  he 
writes   to   the   Galatians  as    follows:   'Though   we  or  an  angel 
from  Heaven  preach  any  other  Gospel  unto  you,  let  him  be  ac- 
cursed,' Gal.  1.  V.  8.     Here  you  see  that  he  demanded  an  entire 
submission  to  the  doctrine  he  had   taught  them  ;  and  I  also  de- 
mand an    unqualified  submission  to  my   interpretations    of  the 
Sacred  Writings,  and  my  warrant  for  so  doing  I  have   already 
exhibited  to    you."     "You    are  therefore  infallible,"  says  Dr. 
Brownlee.     "Yes,  'I  am  the  pillar  and  ground  of   truth.'     1 
cannot,  therefore,  give  you   for  scripture,  what  is   not  scripture, 
and  for  the  meaning  of  scripture,  what  is  not  its  meaning."  "But 
where  is  this  infallibility  lodged  ?"  says  Dr.  Brownlee  ;  "  some  of 
your  children  say  it  is  in  the  Pope  alone."     "  Whoever  told  you 
so,'  told  you  what  is  not  true  ;  the  infallibility  which  /  hold  you 
to,  is,  not  lodged  in  the  Pope  alone,   and  no  enlightened  son  of 
mine  ever  taugfit  this  doctrine."     "  Others  place  your   infallibi- 
lity in  a  general  council,   independently  of  the  Pope,"  remarks 
Dr.  Brownlee.   "  No  such  thing,"  answers  the  Church.   "  Where 
then  is  your  infallibility  ^"     "  It  is  seated  in  all  my  Bishops  and 
Pastors   throughout  the.  whole  world,  professing  the   same  doc- 
trine, and  united  in    faith    and  communion  with    their   supreme 
Pastor,  the  Bishop  of  Rome.     It  also  resides  in  a  general  Coun- 
cil, at   which   the    Pope  is  present,  either  in    person  or  by  his 
legates,  after  it  is  conformed  by   the  Pope  himself.     This  is  an 
article  of  faith  wherein  all  Catholics  agree.     See  Snares  de  fide, 
page  5.  sec.  7.  No.  9.     You    now  know  where  to  find  my  infal- 
libility, and  on  this  subject  you  will  find  no  diflierence  of  opinion 
among  my  children."     "  But  did  not  the  Council  of  Pisa  depose 
two  Popes'?"  "  Their  election  was  doubtful,  and  they  could  not 
have  been  considered  by  me  as  true  and  lawful  Popes."     "  Was 
not  John  XXIII.  a  lawful  Pope  9"  Dr.  Brownlee  will  say.    "  He 
was  until  he  violated  the  condition  of  his  election  by  running 


78 

away  from  Constance.     By  violating  this  condition,  viz.  that  he 
would  resign  if  the  peace  of  the  Church  required  it,    the  Papal 
Chair  become  vacant,  and  John  was  virtually  dead."     <' But  did 
not  the  Council  of  Basle   excommunicate  Eugenius  the  4th  V 
"  It  did   not.    He   was   excommunicated   by   a  schismatic  club 
only.  The  Popes    then    who   were  opposed   by  the   Councils  of 
Pisa,  could  not  be  considered   as   Popes.  And  John  the  twenty- 
third,  who   was  deposed    by  the  Council  of  Constance,  actually 
forfeited  his  title.   Your  objection,  then,  against  my  infallibility 
on  this  score,  originated  in  ignorance,  and  falls  to  the  ground  ; 
and  if  you  wish  for  further  information   on  this  head,  go   to  my 
faithful  son   Bellarmine,  and  he. will   tell  you  that   all  Catholic 
divines  constantly  teach,  timt  general  councils  confirmed  by  the 
Pope,  cannot  err,  either  in  explaining  matters  of  faith,  or  pre- 
cepts of  morality,  wherein  the  whole  church  is  concerned."  Lib. 
2.  de  cone,  et  Eccle.  c.  2.  "  But  then   there  yet  remains  Pope 
]\larcellinus,"  continues  Dr.  Brownlee.  "  The  calumnious  charge 
against  Marcellinus,"  answers  the  Church,  "  originated  with  the 
Donatists.  You   say  he  was  condemned  for  idolatry.  The  illus- 
trious St.  Austin  says  in  his  work,  De  unico  Baptist  cent.  Petilia- 
num,  c.  16. — '  Lapsum   Marcellini  Donatist   quidem  Catholicis 
objecerunt  :  sed  crimen  commissum  esse  hactenus  non  probave- 
runl9'  Of  Marcellinus,  Theoderetus  thus  writes,  lib.  1.  c.  3.  viz. 
'  persecutionis   temporibus   magna   gloria  nobilitatie.'"     "But 
U'hat  am  I  to  do  with  all  your  folios,  and  those  enormous  heaps 
of  stuff  that  have  floated  down   on   the  wind  and    miasmatic  air 
of  1,260  years  ?"  *' You  are  not  scholar  enough  to  approach  these 
folios.  Learn  your  catechism  first.  That  you  will  find  to  be  the 
same,  from  '  Indus  to  the  Pole  ;'   and  if  you  wish  to  study  theo- 
logy, which  I  would  not  advise  you  to  approach,  at  this  advanced 
period  of  your  life,    you  may  go  to  one  of  my  Universities,  and 
after  becoming  acquainted  with  the  language  of  my  Liturgy  and 
*if  my  Schools,  of  which  you   have  already  a  little  smattering, 
you  may  form  some  acquaintance  with  Saints  Jerome  and  Au- 
gustin,  and  the  others.  You  might  also  in  a  few  months  become 
acquainted  with  my  decrees  concerning  faith  and  morals.     All 
tliat  is  necessary  for  you  as  a  plain,  simple  man,   is  to  know  the 
summary  of  Christian  doctrine,  which  you  will  find  in  the  hands 
of  every  Catholic  child  in    this  city.    This  will  give  you  a  more 
perfect  idea  of  the  religion  of  my  Holy  Founder  than   you  can 
ever  expect  to  acquire  from   the   polluted  commentaries  of  Cal- 
vin, Luther,  &c.     Remember  that  though  the  Scriptures  are  the 
tt?orc/  of  God,  that  the  Church  is  the  spouse  of  Christ.    Though 
the  Scripture  is  the  truth  itself,    that  the  Church  is  the  ground 
of  truth.     Though  the   Scripture  is  the  law^  the  Church   is  the 


kingdom  of  Christ.  This  kingdom  must  be  cjo^emed  by  that 
law,  but  that  law  must  be  interpreted  by  the  representatives  of 
that  kingdom." 

You  assert  Rev.  Doctor,  tliat  our  Rule  originated  with  "  an 
ignorant,  debased  and  enslaved  generation  of  men,  in  tlie  dark 
ages,"  Recollect  that  the  Devil  is  the  Auher  of  lies,  and  that  he 
will  claim  those  as  his  own,  who  prove  themselves  to  be  his  true 
children.  What,  Sir,  our  Rule  of  Faith,  "got  up  by  ignorant, 
debased,  and  enslaved  men"  in  the  middle  ages  !  Is  this.  Sir, 
your  judgment  of  the  most  ancient  father,  Ireneus,  or  did  he  live 
in  the  dark  ages?  His  words,  Rev.  Sir,  are  truly  expressive. 
Mark  them.  "If  there  be  any  disagreement  among  Christians, 
concerning  any  controversy  in  religion,  what  other  course  is 
there  to  be  taken  than  to  have  recourse  to  the  most  ancient 
churches,  and  to  receive  from  them  what  shall  be  certain  and 
manifest.  Iren.  lib.  3.  c.  4.  You  who  invite  us  to  come  with 
you  to  Christ,  and  to  desert  "  Holy  Mother"  Vvill  say  that  Origen 
was  born  in  the  middle  ages,  and  that  he  was  an  ignorant  fool, 
when  he  wrote  as  follows  :  *^  As  often  as  the  heretics  produce  the 
canonical  books,  they  seem  to  say,  behold  God  is  made  the  in- 
mate of  your  houses;  but  we  ought  not  to  believe  them,  nor  to 
stray  from  the  older  ecclesiastical  tradition,  nor  to  believe  other- 
wise, than  according  to  what  has  been  delivered  to  us  by  the 
succession  of  the  Church  of  God."  Origen  Horn,  in  Matt.  29. 

Were  you  better  acquainted  with  Protestant  theology,  we 
would  have  been  spared  great  trouble,  and  we  should  have  the 
satisfaction  of  grappling  with  argument,  instead  of  barefaced 
assertion.  Bancroft,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  says  in  the  pre- 
face of  his  book  entitled  "  ab  acta  colloquii  Belgardensis  respon- 
sio,  part  1.  p.  21,  "  We  must  hear  what  the  Church  shall  say  and 
determine  in  matters  of  controversy,  for  God  has  bound  himself 
to  his  Church,  that  men  by  her  good  direction,  might  in  matters 
of  doubt  be  relieved."  Doctor  Field,  in  his  sermon,  Sth  of  Feb. 
1588,  says,  "Seeing  the  controversies  in  religion,  in  our  times 
are  grown  in  number  so  many  :  in  nature  so  intricate:  tiiat  few 
have  time  or  leisure  :  fewer  strength  of  understanding  to  exa- 
mine them  :  what  remaineth  for  men  desirous  of  satisfaction  in 
things  of  such  consequence,  but  diligently  to  search  out,  which 
of  all  the  societies  of  men  in  the  world,  is  that  blessed  company 
of  Holiness,  the  Spouse  of  Christ  and  Church  of  the  living  God, 
which  is  the  pillar  and  ground  of  truth,  that  so  we  may  rest  in 
her  judgment."  We  feel  no  small  satisfaction  in  seeing  you 
thus  abandoned,  by  the  great  lights  of  Christianity,  and  also  by 
the  brightest  ornaments  of  Protestantism.  Peter  Martyr,  in  his^ 
Common  Places  part  2d,  says  "doubtless  among  all  testimonies^ 


80      . 

that  testimony  is  of  the  greatest  account,  which  is  given  by  the 
enemies."  Tully  also  says  in  his  oration  for  Cecilius,  "Testimo- 
nium tuum,  quod  in  aliena  re  leve,  hoc  contra  te  grave."  It  is, 
therefore,  that  we  run  to  our  enemies  for  our  justification.  You 
claim  them  as  yours,  and  you  see  they  have  abandoned  you. 
Hooker  and  Field  and  Calvin  and  Luther,  have  said  more  in  our 
favor,  than  you,  we  believe,  are  aware  of;  for  your  satisfaction, 
you  shall  hear  what  they  have  said  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church.  Chillingworth,  p.  265.  lib.  cant.  sect.  20.  p.  528.  calls 
the  Church  of  Rome  "  TAe  true  Church,  the  Catholic  Church, 
the  only  true  Church.^^  Calvin  in  Gratul,  calls  the  Church  of 
Rome  "  The  Sanctuary  of  God^  Luther  lib.  con.  Anahap.  con- 
fesses, that  "  there  is  very  much  good  to  he  found  in  the  papacy, 
nay,  every  good  christian  thing,  and  that  from  thence  they  were 
derived  unto  us.  In  the  papacy  there  is  true  Christianity,  nay, 
what  is  more,  the  very  kernal  of  Christianity.''^  Your  answer  to 
this  will  be,  of  course,  that  Luther  was  yet  a  "  half  monk,  and 
without  his  full  measure  of  the  spirit.''^ 

It  is  painful  to  be  obliged  to  expose  your  ignorance  where 
you  ought  to  be  better  informed.  Are  you  not  aware.  Sir,  that 
the  Vulgate,  which  you  call  the  worst  of  all  translations,  and 
which  you  say  is  considered  as  such  by  all  enlightened  Protest- 
ants, was  partly  made  and  partly  corrected  by  the  first  biblical 
scholar,  and  one  of  the  greatest  and  most  holy  men  who  ever 
lived,  St.  JeromQ.  You  ought  to  know  that  this  version  was 
made  when  the  best  and  purest  copies,  of  the  Hebrew,  Chaldaic, 
Greek  and  Latin,  together  with  the  polyglots  of  Origen  were  to 
be  had.  That  this  version  has  been  constantly  in  the  hands  of 
the  Western  Church  in  all  its  extent  during  fifteen  centuries. 
You  ought  to  know  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  Hebrew  and 
Greek  Originals  have  been  during  many  ages  in  the  hands  of 
wandering  Jews,  and  divided  oppressed  Asiatics,  and  that  there- 
fore you  cannot  possibly  answer  for  the  changes  they  may  have 
undergone.  This  circumstance  ought  to  cause  you  to  observe 
deep  silence,  on  this  point.  Our  remarks  on  your  translations, 
and  the  spurious  copies  from  which  they  have  been  made,  are 
reserved  for  another  occasion.  Are  you  ignorant,  that  the  most 
learned  Protestants  in  Biblical  criticism,  such  as  Mill  in  his  pro- 
log, p.  142,  Walton  Prolyg.  c.  110,  and  others,  have  professed 
the  greatest  esteem  for  the  Latin  Vulgato.  They  acknowledge 
it  to  be  farther  removed  from  the  suspicion  of  prejudice  and  par- 
tiality than  any  other  version.  See  Diet  Histor  de  Feller; — ar- 
ticle Jerome.  The  learned  Grotius  writes  of  the  Vulgate,  thus 
*'  Vulgatum,  interpretem  semper  plurimi  feci,  non  modo  quod 
nulla   dogmata  insalubria   continet,    sed    etiam  quod    multum 


81 

habet  in  se  eruditionis."  Grot,  in  annot  in  Fit.  Test.; 
And  notwithstanding  this  mass  of  respectable  testimony,  the 
Preacher  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Churcli  tells  us  that  the  Vulgate 
is  the  worst  of  all  possible  translations" — Quid  Domini  facient, 
audent  cum  inViafures. 

To  see  Protestants,  who  know  their  Scriptures  on  the  au- 
thority of  the  Church,  classing  among  the  Apocrypha,  some  of 
the  books  contained  in  our  canon,  which  we  have  on  the  same 
authority  as  they,  and  under  better  circumstances,  is  a  paradox, 
which  to  us  is  passing  strange.  Our  canon  of  the  Scriptures  is 
the  only  one,  which  is  founded  on  the  universal  tradition  of  the 
church.  The  Council  of  Laodicea,  the  greatest  authority  on 
which  Protestants  rely  for  their  canon  omits  the  Apocalypse, 
and  Rufinus  is  the  only  ancient  writer  vvho  mentions  the  books 
as  you  have  them. 

The  od  Council  of  Carthage,  held  in  the  year  397,  examined 
the  Tradition  of  the  Church,  witii  regard  to  those  books  about 
which  there  was  any  doubt,  or  difference  of  opinion,  and  found 
all  the  books  recommended  in  our  canon.  In  the  47th  canon, 
the  Council  defines  our  books  to  be  canonical,  saying,  "We 
received  from  our  fathers,  that  these  books  are  to  be  read  in  the 
Church."  Pope  Innocent  the  First,  who  lived  A.  D.  401,  was 
requested  by  Exuperius,  Bishop  of  Toulouse,  to  tell  him  what 
books  were  canonical,  sets  down  in  the  7th  Epistle,  all  our 
books.  St.  Austin  lib.  de.  doctr.  Christiana  c.  8.  does  the  same. 
After  him  comes  Pope  Gelasius,  A.  D.  492,  who  confirms  our 
canon.  After  Gelasius  comes  the  Sixth  General  Council,  A.  D. 
680,  in  which  our  books  are  defined  ;  and,  lo  and  behold,  the 
preacher  in  the  Middle.Dutch  Church  rejects  this  canon,  because 
he  knows,  from  the  teaching  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  some  of  the 
books  are  apocryphal  or  fabulous! ! 

Your  quotation  from  Bellarmine  is  an  old  calumny.  It  has 
been  renewed  by  Southey  in  his  book  of  the  Church.  The  pas- 
sage is  found  in  the  Treatise  of  Bellarmine  De  Romano  Pontifice 
liv.  4.  c.  5.  of  the  Lyons  edition  in  fol.  1596.  We  refer  our 
readers  to  this  place  as  it  stands  in  the  book,  and  there  they 
will  find  that  Bellarmine  merely  states  a  proposition  ;  contro- 
verts it,  and  proves  it  to  be  erroneous,  by  showing  that  if  it  were 
true  "  it  would  authorize  the  Pope  to  make  virtue  vice,  and  vice 
virtue^ 

You  say,  that  the  Pope  has  been  called  ''God."  Your  rule 
of  faith,  Sir,  styles  Kings,  Princes,  and  Magistrates,  Gods.  Read 
Calvin's  Commentaries  on  the  Passages  in  the  Psalms,  in  which 
Solomon  is  called  "God."     Judges  are  called  "  Gods." 

In  order  that  your  hearers  in  the  Middle  Dutch  Church  may 
No.  6.— U 


S2 

see  how  easily  the  Scriptures  can  prove  their  own  infallibility, 
which  is  undoubtedly  a  point  of  great  importance,  we  beg  leave 
to  refer  them  to  the  following  passages  :  Matt.  1,  v.  17,  it  is  said, 
*'  all  the  generations  from  Abraham  to  David  are  fourteen  gene- 
rations ;  and  from  David  until  the  carrying  away  into  Babylon, 
are  fourteen  generations  ;  and  from  the  carrying  away  into 
Babylon,  unto  Christ,  are  fourteen  generations.  In  the  first  14, 
Abraham  is  the  first,  and  David  is  the  last.  Solomon  then  must 
begin  the  second  fourteen,  and  Jechonia's  is  the  last.  The  first 
in  the  third  fourteen  is  Salathiel,  and  the  last  is  Christ.  Now 
poor  weak  human  reason  tells  you,  that  you  must  find  twelve 
generations  between  Salathial  and  Christ,  or  else  infallibly,  you 
have  not  fourteen  generations,  as  St.  JMatthew  says  you  have. 
St.  Luke,  giving  the  genealogy  of  Christ,  says,  chap.  3,  v.  35,  36. 
"  Salah  which  was  the  son  of  Cainan,  which  was  the  son  of  x\r- 
phaxad."  Now  look  to  Genesis  11,  v.  12,  and  you  will  find 
these  words,  *'  and  Arphaxad  lived  five  and  tliirty  years  and 
begat  Salah."  Whereas  St.  Luke  says,  that  Salah  was  the  son 
of  Cainan.  2  Kings  chap.  8,  v.  26,  we  read,  'Uwo  and  twenty 
years  old  was  Ahasia,  when  he  began  to  reign.''  Now  turn  to 
2  Chronicles  chap.  22,  v.  2,  and  you  will  read  '^  forty  and  two 
years  old  was  Ahasia,  when  he  began  to  reign."  Now,  Rev. 
Doctor,  be  pleased  to  shew  us  the  infallibility  of  the  Scriptures, 
by  your  Rule  of  Faith,  notwithstanding  the  contradictions  here 
noticed. 

Again  we  ask  you,  that  the  "christian  public"  may  judge, 
though  "  we  are  neither  judge  nor  jury,"  to  return  to  the  great 
point  not  yet  proved — your  Rule  of  Faith.  Discard  your 
^'squinting.''''  Tell  us  how  you  know  the  Bible  to  be  the  word 
of  God.  How  do  you  know  which  books  were  written  by  divine 
inspiration  ?  Does  the  Bible  contain  the  whole  of  the  word  of 
God,  or  does  it  not'?  Then  solve  the  difficulties  involved  in 
Luther's  rejection  of  a  part  of  the  inspired  Scriptures.  Look 
to  Wesley  and  the  Arian  cobler,  &c.  &c.  &c.  Do  this  and  our 
letters  will  be  much  shorter.  Do  this  and  you  will  please  the 
learned  among  your  ^^friends;^^ — You  will  please  your  obedient 
servants, 

JOHN  POWER, 
THOS.  C.  LEVINS. 

JVew  York,  March  I2th,  1833. 


83 

&r.  Urow ulceus  JLcttcr^  JVo.  4. 

TO    DRS.  POWER  AND   VARELA,    AND    MR.  LEVINS. 

"  Every  word  of  God  is  pure — Add  tlioii  not  unto  his  words  lest  he  reprove  thee,  and 
thou  be  found  a  liar  !"'     Prov.  xxx.  5.  (5. 

Gentlemen, — Drs.  Power  and  Varela  leave  to  Mr.  Levins  all 
the  '^squintino,"  and  "skirmishing;"  and  also  all  the  scavenger 
work  of  "  billingsgate,"  and  *'  blackguardism  !" — and,  more- 
over, all  that  blasphemy  which  has  shocked  Christian  ears,  in  his 
taunts  against  '*  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
For  (hey  are  gentlemen.  Claiming  also  to  be  a  gentlemen,  I 
will,  of  course,  not  follow  him  in  his  pages  of  pollution.  "The 
members  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church"  are  very  different  people 
from  the  flock  of  St.  Patrick's  pastor.  I  write  for  '^the  mem- 
bers of  the  JNliddle  Dutch  Church."  His  style  is  adapted  to  the 
meridian  of  ^' the  Sheet  Anchor,''^  and  '^  the  beastly  grog-shops.''^ 
And  most  assuredly  when  "  it  happens  unto  such,"  as  St.  Peter 
says,  ^'  according  to  tiie  true  proverb,  the  dog  is  turned  to  his  own 
vomit  again  ;  and  the  sow  that  was  washed  to  her  wallowing  in 
the  mire" — no  gentleman  would  covet  any  communion  with 
him.  See  the  2d  Epistle  of  St.  Peter,  ch.  ii.v.  22.  I  thus  des- 
patch all  his  invective,  and  personalities  :  to  the  public  this  man 
must  give  his  account,  not  to  me. 

I  have  in  a  former  letter,  laid  down  the  two  Rules  of  Faith 
under  discussion.  The  Church  of  Christ,  resting  on  the  Rock 
of  Eternity,  has,  for  her  only  rule,  the  written  word  of  God  in  the 
Old  and  the  New  Testaments  ;  and  the  Holy  Ghost  speaking  to 
us  therein,  is  the  only  Judge  of  Controversy. 

And  I  have  distinctly  stated  to  the  Ciiristian  public,  that  no 
Roman  priest  will  have  candor  enough  to  honor  our  definition,  as 
we  give  it.  The  Protestant  churches  never  have  declared  that 
their  Rule  of  Faith  was  the  Scriptures,  as  received  by  every  one, 
by  private  interpretation.  This  is  an  interpolation  by  the  priests; 
for  they  cannot  defend  their  cause  without  this  perversion.  The 
Holy  Spirit  speaking  unto  us  is  the  Rule  and  Judge;  and  it  is  to 
be  received  as  Hi:  interprets  it  to  us,  in  his  plain,  simple  and 
perspicuous  words.  We  exercise  the  Y\i^\it  oi^ '' jmvate  judg- 
ment,^^  and  "  liberty  of  conscience,"  as  extorted  from  ghostly 
tyranny,  at  the  ever-blessed  Reformation.  J3ut  that  ^^ private 
judgmenV^  does  not  constitute  the  Pcule.  Hereby,  as  rational 
beings  we  are  put  into  the  possession  of  the  means  and  faculties 
of  studying  and  finding  out  the  mind  of  the  infallible  Rule. 

It  is  one  vexatious  difficulty  which  we  have  to  encounter  in 
this  discussion,  that  our  opponents  cannot  take  up,  and  appre- 
ciate the  meaning  and  force  of  certain  words  and  phrases  cur- 


84 

rent  with  Protestants.  A  Roman  priest  can,  for  instance,  no 
more  take  up  the  meaning,  and  estimate  the  force  of  the  terms 
*'  liberty  of  conscience,"  and  *'  private  judgment,"  in  religious 
matters,  than  can  the  legitimates  and  tyrants  of  Europe  appre- 
ciate the  "rights  and  privileges"  of  American  republicans! 
Their  minds  have  never  conceived  the  possibility  of  their  exist- 
ence. They  can  no  more  form  an  idea  of  their  real  value  to 
immortal  souls,  and  the  divine  glory,  than  the  man  born  blind, 
can  form  an  idea  of  colors  ! 

And  what  do  my  readers  suppose  to  be  the  reason,  why  the 
priests,  my  opponents,  have  so  long  and  so  doggedly  insisted  on 
my  letting  their  infallible  Rule  alone;  and  confining  myself 
simply  to  the  proof  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible  ?  They  have 
two  reasons:  The  first  is,  that  they  are  aware,  as  we  shall  soon 
show,  that  their  whole  system  touching  "  infallibility,"  and  their 
*' infallible  rule,"  is  their  open  flank — their  weak  side.  And 
second,  the  main  reason  is  this  :  The  Roman  Church  holds  this 
dogma  as  the  basis  of  her  whole  system,  that  "  the  inspnation  of 
the  Scriptures  relies  only  on  an  external  authority — even  the  au- 
thority of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.'''  My  opponents  express 
this  in  their  Letter,  No.  3. 

Now,  they  believe  that  no  Protestant  can  prove  the  divinity  of 
the  Bible  but  by  the  voice  of^'  Holy  Mother !"  You  may  advance 
all  that  has  ever  been  written  on  it — yet,  if  you  do  not  yield  up 
the  question  in  debate,  and  fall  down  and  acknowledge  ihe  Ro- 
man Goddess,  as  above  "  all  that  is  called  God,  or  is  worshipped," 
they  raise  the  outcry,  that  you  have  not  touched  the  point.  "  Yield 
me  all  I  want,"  cries  the  priest — ''or,  you  shun  the  whole  ques- 
tion ;  and  know  nothing  about  logic,  or  theology. "  And,  more- 
over, when  we  have  such  anthropoi  alogoi,  "  unreasonable 
men,"  as  Mr.  Levins,  to  deal  with,  whose  Liishowen  inspirations 
render  him  unfit  to  take  up  a  solid  argument,  one  gets  heartily 
*^  blackguarded"  in  the  bargain  ! 

Now,  we  have  discussed  the  proofs  of  the  inspiration  of  the 
Bible,  and  shown  that  it  is  established  perfectly  by  its  own  in- 
ternal evidence^  and  by  external  proofs,  such  as  miracles, 
tongues,  prophecies,  and  by  historical  evidence,  and  tradition 
also;  as  that  of  the  Hebrews  and  Jews,  "  to  whom  was  committed 
the  oracles  of  God;"  and  by  the  Church  at  Jerusalem;  and  by 
the  Church  at  Antioch  ;  by  the  whole  Greek  Church  ;  by  the 
apostolical  Church  of  the  Waldenses,  and  by  the  Church  of 
Rome.  All  these  were  checks  mutually  on  each  other ;  and 
handed  down  the  Holy  Scriptures  to  present  times. 

There  never  was  exhibited  such  another  master-piece  of 
ghostly  assurance  and  impudence,  as  that  of  the  Romish  Church, 


85 

in  pouring  contempt  on  the  Ciiurclies  of  the  East — say  of  Anti- 
och  ;  and  all  the  Creek  Church,  far  more  ancient  than  herself, 
and  far  purer  ;  and  also  on  all  other  branches  of  the  (.'hiirch  : 
and  of  claiming  the  exclusive  honor  of  handing  down  the  Bible, 
by  tradition.  Nay,  to  crown  the  climax,  she  arrogates,  before 
Almighty  God,  the  right  of  prescribing  and  dictating  the  inspi- 
ration of  tlie  Bible.  It  depends,  she  says,  on  her  authority. 
This,  we  repeat,  is  either  sheer  knavery,  or  an  indication  of  de- 
rangement in  the  moral facultij  ! 

I  trust,  gentlemen,  that  now  "all  the  members  of  the  Middle 
Dutch  Church,"  and  the  religious  community,  see  distinctly  the 
reason  of  your  "  zealotry"  in  this  mode  of  conducting  the 
debate  ;  and  demanding,  imperiously,  an  answer  to  questions 
again  and  again  answered.  And  I  close  by  stating  again  distinct- 
ly, that  you  have  no  right  to  pronounce  on  one  of  my  arguments. 
You  are  neither  judge  nor  jury  ;  the  public  are  your  umpires  and 
mine  ;  and  to  them  1  appeal. 

The  Rule  of  Faith  of  "  Holy  Mother  Church,"  we  also  stated  ; 
it  is  this:  "infallible  Scriptures,"  together  with  the  Apocryphal 
Books  ;  and  oral  traditions,  with  the  unanimous  consent  of  the 
Greek  and  Latin  fathers;  and  all  as  explained  by  the  infallible 
head,  the  Pope,  or  a  Council,  or  the  Church,  or  a  Pope  and 
Council.  "The  Bible,"  or  "infallible  Rule"  of  the  Romish 
Church,  in  a  word,  is  large  enough  to  load  four  carts  heavily ; 
besides  all  their  traditions.  And  then  the  "  Pope,"  or  "Council," 
or  "  Church,"  is  mounted  on  them  as  the  "  infallible  judge  and 
interpreter." 

We  are  now  prepared  to  go  on  with  our  "dissection"  of  this 
Rule.  The  whole  of  the  Roman  system,  as  is  evident  from  his- 
tory, scripture,  and  dear-bought  experience,  is  a  cunningly  de- 
vised scheme  to  gain — not  the  salvation  of  souls  ;  she  who  is 
"  drunk  with  the  blood  of  the  saints"  has  no  anxiety  about  the 
salvation  of  souls;  but  to  gain  unbounded  civil  power,  and 
wealth  for  Peter's  purse.  And  as  a  preparatory  step  to  this,  she 
seeks  to  gain  a  complete  ghostly  power  over  the  souls  and  con- 
sciences of  her  crushed  and  trodden  down  victims.  Hence  we 
are  taught  where  to  seek  for  the  originating  cause  of  the  Church 
of  Rome's  adopting  not  God's  holy  word,  but  this  Rule  as  the  '^in- 
fallible  Rule.^^  The  question,  with  its  devisers  and  inventors,  was 
not.  What  has  God  spoken  ?  What  is  his  word  ?  But  it  was 
this  :  What  shall  we  adopt  to  achieve  promptly  the  consumma- 
tion of  our  scheme  of  spiritual  subjugation  ;  and,  thence,  the 
temporal  power  over  the  souls,  and  bodies,  and  purses  of  men, 
women  and  children? 

The  famous  Chillingwohth,  whose  complete  works  are  now 


86 

on  my  table,  furnished  us,  in  our  last  letter,  the  true  origin  of 
this  Romish  Rule.  This  writer  is,  on  our  side  of  the  Romish 
controversy,  what  Homer  was  among  the  ancient  poets;  and 
Demosthenes  was  among  the  orators.  And  yet  my  Inishowen 
opponent,  Levins — (for  as  the  Roman  Catholic  Herald  of  Phila- 
delphia sr.ys  in  truth,  he  does  all — rs  factotmn) — this  same  wor- 
thy gravely  quotes,  in  his  last  letter,  this  Protestant  Hercules,  as 
one  actually  favoring  his  heresy  I !  If  there  were  an  asylum  for 
phrenzied  polemicks,  our  Vicar  General,  1  am  sure,  would  have 
bowels  of  compassion  enough  to  send  him  to  it !  But  that  lies 
between  them  ;  not  us — and  "  the  members  of  the  Middle  Dutch 
.Church." 

According  to  Chillingworth,  this  is  the  precise  attitude  of  the 
Pope,  and  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  before  the  world.  That 
THING,  be  it  Pope,  or  Council,  or  Pope  and  Council,  or  "  Mother 
,Church,"  in  which  infiillibility  is  lodged,  does  in  a  condescend- 
ing manner,  take  the  Holy  One  and  his  blessed  world,  under 
its  special  protection  :  gives  the  Bible  its  inspiration,  and  all  its 
;authority  -.claims  the  uncontrolled  right  of  explaining  the  Bible 
to  all  men's  consciences  ;  and  of  adding  new  doctrines,  and  even 
new  sacraments  :  appoints  his  own  devoted  priesthood,  as  *'  their 
other  God  upon  earth,"  as  Mussus,  bishop  ofBotonto  said  ;  doles 
out  a  portion  of  the  ''  infallible  interioi  spirit"  to  each  priest  and 
every  little  scribe,  for  the  defence  of  the  scarlet  woman  of  St. 
John  ;and  brings  every  thing  into  market,  for  money,  even  souls 
and  bodies  of  men,  and  6ach  sin,  which  has  its  own  price  in  the 
Pope's  exchequer  book.  They  avail  themselves  of  the  benefit  of 
the  Bible  when  it  seems  to  *•  squint"  that  way  ;  and  when  it  is 
dumb,  or  condemns  them,  they  put  it  on  the  Pope's  rack,  until 
it  speaks  out  what  they  want,  before  an  ignorant  and  unlearned 
generation  of  men  ! 

We  finished  our  first  /wo  arguments  against  the  Roman  Rule. 
We  showed  that,  with  all  their  pretensions,  their  best  and  most 
intelligent  writers  cannot  tell  us  where  it  is  to  be  found.  "  We 
do  have  it  in  good  earnest,  but  we  cannot  come  at  it."  There  is 
an  unique  illustration  of  this,  in  an  anecdote  of  a  cook  of  one  of 
our  fine  packets.  He  was  a  "rale  sprig"  of  St.  Patrick;  and, 
therefore,  my  opponents  being  judges,  it  is  an  orthodox  anec- 
dote. Honest  Patrick,  in  his  vocation,  happened,  while  washing 
a  fine  copper  kettle,  to  let  it  roll  overboard  into  the  sea.  It  was 
gone  in  a  moment.  There  was  no  use  in  lamenting;  he  could 
not  recall  it.  He  made  his  way  directly  to  the  captain  : — 
"Arra,  now,  captain,  can  a  thing  be  said  to  be  lost,  when  we 
know  where  is  is?"  *'  Certainly  not,  my  good  lad  !"  replied  the 
captain.     "  Well,  then,  by  St.  Patrick  !"  cried  our  cook,  "  then 


87 

my  fine  copper  kettle  canna  be  said  to  be  lost,  at  all ;  for  /  know 
that  it  is  in  the  bottom  of  the  sea.'*  "Holy  Mother's"  infallible 
judge  is  in  precisely  the  same  predicament  I  But  who  shall 
bring  it  up,  and  make  it  visible  and  tangible  !  Our  5ec'();i(Z  argu- 
ment was  this  :  No  mortal  man,  Pope  or  Council,  can  wiold  this 
same  Rule,  or  make  any  practicable  use  of  it.      We  will  go  on  ; 

III.  Your  infallible  Ihde  can  never  he  found  out,  on  your  jvin- 
ciplcs,  or  employed  for  the  benefit  of  man.  This  Uule  must 
have  been  established  by  Christ  for  the  benefit  of  all  God's  moral 
subjects  ;  or  only  for  the  benefit  of  the  Pope  and  his  Clergy. 
You  will  scarcely  deny  that  God  designed  his  message  to  be 
addressed  to  all  men.  Christ  says, — "  What  I  say  to  you,  I  say 
to  all,  ivatch.^^  'Hie  that  hath  an  ear  let  him  hear  what  the 
Spirit  saith  unto  the  churches."  "Search  ye  the  Scriptures, 
&c."  "  Blessed  is  he  that  readcth  and  they  that  hear,  &c."  You 
You  will  scarcely  venture  to  allirm  in  this  enlightened  day,  that 
none  but  priests  ought  to  read  the  Bible  :  tiiat  God  addressed 
his  word  only  to  priests;  far  less  that  any  polluted  and  immoral 
priesthood  can  be  the  grand  depository  of  God's  truth  !  I  beg 
pardon  :  I  wrong  you  :  you  have  actually  declared  this.  But  the 
assertion  of  a  criminal  who  has  abstracted,  and  wasted  his  mas- 
ter's goods  is  not  a  witness  in  his  own  case  :  his  proofless  word 
passes  for  nothing.     Give  us  proof,  instead  of  mere  assertions. 

Now,  how  must  those  wdio  are  to  receive  benefit  from  your 
Rule,  arrive  at  the  evidence  of  the  fact  that  your  rule  is  the 
only  infallible  rule  ?  On  the  principles  you  hold,  no  one  can 
find  it  out.  You  condemn,  and  in  genuine  Romish  spirit,  yoa 
even  ridicule  the  rights  oi  private  Judgment,  u.nd  private  inter- 
pretation,  in  this  matter.  Now  apply  your  own  argument  here,, 
and  you  shall  see  whither  it  leads  you. 

You  say  that  the  Holy  Bible  is  the  inflillible  rule,  so  far  as  it 
goes :  then  you  add  the  Apocrypha  ;  and  a  chaotic  mass  of  tradi- 
tions :  and  all  these  are  to  be  taken  according  to  {\\c  unanimous^ 
consent  of  the  fathers  ;  of  whom  any  two  are  scarcely  of  one 
mind.  How  go  you  to  work  here  ?  You  set  out  to  seek  this 
rule  and  judge,  either  as  a  Cimrcli,  en  masse  :  which  is  utterly 
impossible ;  or  you  go  as  individuals  ;  but  how  can  you,  as  indi- 
viduals, be  assured  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible;  of  the  genu- 
ine traditions;  and  of  the  consent  of  the  fathers'?  You  must 
either  form  a  judgment  and  belief,  or  not.  If  not,  then  there  is 
no  faith  ;  nothing  is  done.  If  you  do  form  a  belief  and  a  judg- 
ment ;  then  mark  your  dilemma,  you  do  by  private  judgment, 
and  by  private  interpretation,  determine  yourself^  that  tliis  is 
the  rule  and  judge.  And  thus  you  do,  as  fallible  men,  by  pri- 
vate judgment,  determine  the  infallible  rule.     That  is  to  say, 


88 

private  judgment,  and  fallible  individuals  do  that  which  you  have 
declared  they  never  can  do.  And,  hence,  in  determining  your 
rule,  you  overthrow  all  your  objections  against  ours. 

But  even  admitting  that  you  have,  by  private  and  fallible 
judgment,  determined  the  infallible  rule,  you  will  find  your- 
selves no  nearer  the  end  of  your  difficulties  than  before. 

Your  infallible  head,  the  Pope,  happens  to  be  a  mortal  and 
erring  man.  Besides  he  is  not  accessible,  except  to  only  a  few 
in  Italy.  He  cannot  exhibit  truth,  and  decide  controversies  in 
every  Chapel  ;  in  every  house,  in  every  heart,  in  all  lands.  A 
Council  can  do  no  better.  There  has  been  no  council  since  that 
of  Trent.  And  the  ghost  of  that  "  holy  infallible  Council,"  can- 
not walk  the  earth  ;  and  stalk  into  all  houses,  and  Chapels,  and 
hearts,  in  all  lands  ! — It  could  not  do  this,  v/ere  it  even  now  in 
life,  at  Trent. 

"Holy  Mother  Church,"  can  act  no  better  part.  You  send 
your  people  to  her  for  the  true  infallible  Rule  :  the  act  of  faith  is 
thus  expressed  in  your  Douay  Catechism  ;  and  the  definition  is 
a  curious  one  ;  it  embraces  the  sum  total  of  a  Papist's  faith  ; 
<'  Great  God,  I  firmly  believe  all  those  sacred  truths  which  thy 
holy  Catholic  Church  believes,  and  teaches,  because  thou,  who 
art  truth  itself,  hast  revealed  them,  Amen!"  I  will  not  stop  to 
remind  you  that  the  Mahommedan  belief  is  as  simple,  namely, — 
*'  there  is  one  God,  and  Mahommed  is  Ms  Prophet.^^  And 
throughout  all  Turkey,  there  is  much  more  unity  in  belief,  than 
in  your  Church.  But  vvhat  I  urge  on  your  attention  is  this  ;  the 
difficulty  is  not  removed  by  this  chicanery.  "  Holy  Church," 
cannot  do  any  thing  better,  in  this  affair,  than  the  Pope.  For 
what  is  "  Holy  Ciiurch?"  Roman  Priests  do  not  even  agree  in 
the  answer  to  this  question.  Some  say  ^'  tlie  Church,"  is  the 
Pope  and  his  Clergy  :  some  say  it  is  the  priesthood  :  Mr.  Hughes, 
and  you  seem  to  include  the  laity  with  the  priests,  and  so  make 
it  "  the  people  and  their  pastors."     (Hughes*  Letter,  Feb.  28. 

But  here  is  the  difficulty;  how  can  you  congregate  all  these 
into  one  speaking  rule  1  How,  and  wjiere,  can  the  simple  faith- 
ful find  the  response  of  this  oracle  7  No  where,  under  the  sun, 
can  they  find  it.  She  cannot  speak  and  judge  ;  the  faithful  can- 
not hear  her  voice  from  all  places  where  the  people  and  priests 
are  scattered  abroad. 

Either  then,  the  faithful  flock  have  no  faith,  because  they  have 
NO  response  from  this  oracle,  and  no  rule  ;  or  else  they  must 
heWeye  by  p7'0xy ;  and  rujt  only  so,  but  truly  believe  that  of 
which  they  have  no  knowledge  whatever  !  And  this  last  is  the 
alternative  as  every  one  knows  !  And  any  man  can  make  the 
experiment  to   satisfy  himself,  with    a  true  and  devoted  son  of 


89 

the  Church.  Let  any  one  ask  a  Catholic  who  follows  implicitly 
the  priest,  ^' Pray,  what  is  your  belief?"  he  will  reply,  '^/be- 
lieve as  the  Church  believes."  'MVell,  what  does  the  Church 
believe'?"  He  will  say,  '^  Holy  Church  believes  as  I  believe." 
*' But  what  do  you  and  the  Church  believe?"  "  Why,  arrah, 
now,  We  both  believe  exactly  the  same  thing  !"  This  is  the  uni- 
form answer  ;  and  you  never  can  get  any  other  answer  out  of 
him,  for  the  best  reason  in  the  world  ;  because  there  is  nothing 
else  in  him  I  And  what  is  much  worse,  by  the  Rule,  and  the 
priests'  influence,  nothing  else  is  allowed  to  enter  into  his  hum- 
ble and  wofully  abused  mind.  '*  Ignorance  is  the  mother  of 
DEVOTION  !     This  is  their  old  and  tried  maxim. 

Finally,  shall  the  flock  be  sent  to  what  your  cliampion,  Dr. 
Milner,  calls  "  the  whole  icord  of  God  written  and  unwritten  V 
This,  as  1  have  said,  is  large  enough  to  load  some  four  carts  ! 
Having  found  these  130  folio  volumes,  and  the  unwritten  tradi- 
tions, if  he  can,  the  simple  inquirer  is  no  nearer  tiie  end  of  his 
difficulties.  For,  alas  !  should  a  layman  in  his  simplicity,  dare 
to  take  it  on  him  to  use  his  private  judgment,  and  reason,  and 
make  a  mental  effort  to  find  out  his  Maker's  will,  and  the  holy 
vrord  speaking  to  him,  he  should  forthwith  have  the  ban  of  the 
Priest  pronounced  on  him,  and  threatened  away  from  his  sin  of 
daring  to  think  for  himself,  by  the  fires  of  purgatory  !  He  must 
yield  up  his  conscience,  and  his  soul  to  be  guided  by  the  Pope, 
or  Council  ;  that  is  to  say,  a  Rule  and  a  Judge  which  he  can 
never  see,  or  discover  ! 

IV.  That  Christ  established  your  infallible  Rule,  in  his 
Church,  we  utterly  deny. 

The  Roman  Catholic  writers  have,  here,  exhibited  a  curious 
specimen  of  logic,  in  their  abortive  efforts  to  prove  that  Christ 
established  their  Rule.  Milner  in  his  End  of  Controversy,  has 
led  the  way  ;  all  of  you  follow  after  him.  You  assert  in  strong 
terms,  that  Christ  did  establish  your  Rule  ;  and  gave  it  to  the 
Apostles  :  tiiat  you  are  the  only  apostolical  successors  :  and, 
therefore,  you  only  have  that  Rule  of  Christ,  that  is  infallible. 

Now,  let  us  see  a  specimen  of  the  logic  and  proof.  Christ, 
you  say,  established  your  Rule.  This  was  the  first  thing  to  be 
proved.  Now,  let  us  not  lose  sight  of  the  materials  of  this  Rule  ; 
if  Christ  ordained  your  Rule,  then  he  gave  forth  by  inspiration 
the  n-^pocrypha,  as  well  as  the  Bible;  then,  also,  he  ordained  by 
inspiration,  all  the  oral  traditions  of  your  Church  ;  and  he  also 
told  the  Church,  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  lie  gave  the  unanimous 
consent  of  the  endlessly  contradicting  fathers,  as  a  part  of  that 
Rule,  and    that  he  appointed,  by  name  and  title,  the  Pope,  t.j 

12 


90 

Council,  oY  the  Church,  you  know  not  which,  as  the  only  infalli- 
ble judge. 

This  was  the  point  to  be  proved:  but  they  do  not  touch  it  ex- 
cept by  assertion.  Nay,  they  all,  as  well  Milner,  as  Hughes  and 
yourselves,  shift,  completely,  the  subject  to  be  proved.  And 
instead  of  showing  that  Christ  ordained  the  materials  out  of 
which  your  Rule  is  made,  they  labor  to  show  that  Christ  ordain- 
ed teaching  by  word  of  mouth.  "  Christ,"  says  your  champion, 
Hughes, — "  has  made  the  promise  of  infallibility  to  the  succes- 
sion of  TEACHING  and  NOT  to  Writing,  reading,  or  private  inter- 
pretation." And  Milner  in  his  End  of  Controversy,  declares 
that  Christ  sent  the  Apostles,  and  their  successors,  to  preach  the 
gospel  by  word  of  mouth.  ''  If,"  says  he,  "  Christ  had  intended 
that  all  men  should  learn  his  religion  from  a  book,  viz  :  the  New 
Testament,  he  would  have  written  that  book  himself;  and  enjoin- 
ed the  obligation  of  learning  to  read  it,  &c."  "But,"  adds  this 
Vicar  General  of  England,  with  unblushing  impiety  and  infideli- 
ty, *'  Christ  wrote  no  part  of  the  Kew  Testaynent  himself,  and 
gave  no  orders  to  his  Apostles  to  tvriteit."  See  Letter  VI.  &,c. 
p.  63.  &c.     Thomas  Paine  uttered  nothing  worse. 

Thus,  having  on  the  principles  of  deism,  got  rid  of  the  written 
word  of  God,  although  in  contradiction  to  the  Council  of  Trent, 
which  admitted  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  they  do, 
by  a  dexterous  shifting  of  the  question,  make  this  teaching,  by 
word  of  mouth,  to  be  the  rule  establislied  by  Christ  in  his 
Church  :  and  being  established  by  him,  it  must  be  infallible. 

And  thus,  my  readers  must  see  that  the  real  infallible  rule  of 
Rome,  is  abandoned,  without  proof,  to  its  flite.  Instead  of  prov- 
ing the  inspiration  of  the  Apocrypha,  traditions,  and  the  consent 
of  the  fathers,  and  the  divine  authority  of  the  pope,  they,  very 
gravely  set  to  work,  and  try  to  prove  that  the  "  infallibility  was 
promised  to  teaching  by  word  of  mouth  !" 

But  were  it  possible  that  you,  gentlemen,  could  prove  the  in- 
spiration of  all  the  materials  of  your  Rule,  and  were  it  possible 
that  you  could  prove  the  infallibility  of  the  successors  of  the 
Apostles,  this  would  not  avail  you,  or  your  church.     For, 

V.  The  line  of  your  succession  is  entirely  broken  off^  both  as  to 
the  Popes,  and  the  Church. 

1st.  The  succession  is  cut  off  from  Rome,  by  the  loss  of  the 
essential  bond  of  holiness.  Christ  says,  "  ye  are  my  friends  if 
ye  do  whatsoever  1  command  you."  "  Except  a  man  be  born  of 
water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God." 
*'If  any  man  have  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ  he  is  none  of  his." 
This  is  the  essential  doctrine  of  Christianity.  Hence  no  wicked 
man,  no  infidel,  can  be  considered  a  member  of  Christ's  Church. 


91 

But,  without  denying  that  there  are  individuals  who  are  true 
christians,  within  the  pale  of  the  Romish  Church,  we  do  assert 
that,  as  a  Church,  she  has  not  only  lost  this  badge  of  holy  disci- 
pleship;  but  even  maintains  that  holiness  of  heart,. or  internal 
grace  is  not  necessary  to  membership.  Hence  the  usual  expres- 
sion with  the  Roman  priests, — "  Such  a  one  is  reconciled  to  the 
Ciiurch;"  not  to  God  ;  but  to  the  Church.  And  Bcllarmine  main- 
tains an  argument  that  wicked  men,  infidels  and  reprobates,  re- 
maining in  the  public  profession  of  their  Romish  Church,  are 
true  members  of  the  body  of  Christ  !  See  Bell.  Lib.  3.  De 
Eccles.  c.  7.  The  Rhemist  Annotators  declare  the  same  ;  on  1 
Tim.  3.  sect.  10,  and  on  John  15,  sect.  1. 

2d.  And  in  addition  to  this,  the  Romish  Church  has  aposta- 
tized from  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Gospel.  They  reject 
the  one  only  and  perfect  atonement  of  Christ ;  and  substitute  in 
its  place,  the  Mass,  in  which  they  profess  to  offer  up  weekly,  an 
unbloody  sacrifice  for  the  living  and  the  dead  ;  they  reject  justi- 
fication by  faith  alone,  through  Christ's  righteousness  ;  they  de- 
ny the  eflicacious  work  of  grace,  by  the  Holy  Ghost  :  with  them 
a  sinner  is  saved  purely  by  human  merit,  and  the  efficacy  of  their 
sacraments. 

And  to  the  pure  and  simple  doctrines  and  institutions  of  the 
Gospel  of  Christ,  the  Roman  Catholics  have  added  an  endless 
train  of  doctrines,  and  will-worship,  and  rites,  and  ceremonies. 
The  whole  face  of  Christianity  has  been  changed  in  that  church  ; 
the  whole  system  new-modelled,  in  the  most  heaven-daring 
manner. 

In  Christ's  throne  ihey  have  reared  "their  Lord  God  the 
Pope."  They  have  introduced  the  adoration  of  Saints,  a  thing 
unknown  until  after  the  beginning  of  the  third  century  ;  a  thing 
violently  opposed  until  the  7th  century  ;  and  finally  established 
in  the  9th;  a  thing  violently  opposed  by  St.  vVugustine,  Atha- 
nasius,  St.  Ambrose  and  many  others.  They  have  introduced 
the  idolatrous  veneration  of  images  ;  though  the  use  of  them 
was  solemnly  condemned  in  A.  D.  700,  by  the  Council  of  Con- 
stantinople ;  and  by  the  7th  general  Council,  in  A.  D.  754.  They 
have  invented  a  purgatory,  though  opposed  by  St.  Augustine, 
and  the  best  fathers,  before  the  Gth  century.  They  deny  mar- 
riage to  the  priests  ;  and,  by  way  of  a  pleasant  joke,  they  call  a 
bachelor's  life,  '"'chastity."  This  imposition  on  the  rights  of 
man,  was  made  by  Pope  Gregory  VII.  in  1074  ;  simply  to  secure 
all  the  moneys  for  Peter's  purse  !  Transubstantiation,  and  the 
Mass,  though  invented  in  the  9th  century,  were  imposed  on  the 
Roman  church,  only  so  late  as  1215,  in  the  4th  Council  of  the 
Lateran,  by  Pope  Innocent  III.     They  deny  the  cup  to  the  laity 


92 

in  the  Lord's  Supper ;  even  though  Pope  Gelasius  in  492,  pro- 
nounced it  sacrilege  to  do  so  ! 

Thus, your  Church  is  apostate  in  doctrine;  and  so  the  succes- 
sion is  cut  off.  Hear  the  words  of  Gregory  Nazianzen,  speaking 
of  Athanasius  succeeding  in  the  Church  of  St.  Mark, — "  He  was 
not  less  the  successor  of  his  piety,  than  of  his  seat ;  in  point  of 
time,  distant  from  him  :  but,  in  piety,  which,  indeed,  is  properly 
called  succession,  directly  after  him.  For  he  that  holdeth  of  ihe 
same  doctrine  is  of  the  same  chair  ;  but  he  who  is  an  enemy  to 
the  doctrine,  is  an  enemy  to  the  chair!"  Orat  21,  on  Athan. 
Paris  edit,  of  1777. 

But,  3dly,  your  succession  is  broken  in  the  broken  line  of  the 
Popes,  and  true  ordination.  The  very  nature  of  the  Apostolical 
character,  and  call  to  office,  will  show  that  the  Apostles  had  no 
successors  in  office.  An  Apostle  was  one  who  had  seen  Christ 
alive,  after  his  death  ;  was  sent  by  immediate  inspiration  and  a 
call  to  office,  by  Christ,  visible  to  him  ;  and  who,  moreover, 
could  establish  his  divine  call  before  the  world,  by  miraculous 
powers.  This  is  what  the  Apostle  Paul  says  in  Galatians,  ch.  I. 
and  1  Cor.  9.  1.  <^c. 

Besides  these,  Christ  appointed  Pastors,  and  Teachers.  When 
the  line  of  extraordinary  offices,  like  that  of  the  Apostles  and 
Prophets,  ceased,  the  ordinary  line  of  Pastors  and  Teachers, 
continued.  These  alone,  had  successors ;  as  these  were  succes- 
sors to  the  Apostles  in  that  pait  of  their  character,  which  made 
them  Teachers.  "  Go  ye  and  teach  all  nations*"  This  was 
spoken  as  much  to  the  pastors  and  teachers,  as  to  the  Apostles; 
and  to  the  successors  of  that  class  which  actually  had  successors. 
This  is  the  sentiment  of  the  early  fathers. 

But  even  admitting,  what  was  impossible,  that  your  Popes  were 
the  successors  of  the  Apostles,  the  line  has  been  broken  oftMong 
ago. 

I  have  before  me  copious  extracts  from  Platina,  Baronius, 
Genebrard,  Dupin,  &c.  all  the  Romish  writers,  which  show,  that 
the  Roman  Catholic  church  was  corrupt  from  the  4th  century  ; 
and  increased  continually  in  corruption  until  the  9th  ;  and  from 
the  9th  to  the  Council  of  Trent,  say  for  GGO  years,  she  was  in  a 
state  of  the  most  friglitful  corruption. 

The  tumults  and  bloodshed  at  the  election  of  Popes,  proves 
to  all  impartial  men,  that  Rome  was  converted  into  the  syna- 
gogue of  Satan.  Could  such  gladiators  be  the  Apostolical  suc- 
cessors?— Pope  Liberius  [A.  D.  353]  became  a  heretic  by  the 
Emperor's  inliueuce,  and  that  of  the  apostate  Bishop  Hosius, 
Hear  your  writer  Andre  du  Chesne, — "  Not  to  dwell  on  all  the 
persons  of  distinction,  who  imitated  him.  he  notoriously  carried 


93 

along  with  him,  in  his  fall,  the  supreme  bishop  of  the  intire 
orthodox  church  !" 

Platina,  in  his  life  of  Damascus  I.  A.  D.  .'366,  says, — "that 
when  he  was  elected  Pope,  lie  had  a  rival  in  the  church  called 
Sicinus;  where  many  were  killed  on  both  sides,  in  the  church 
itself:  since  the  matter  was  discussed  not  only  by  votes  but  by 
force  of  amis  /'* 

Baronius,  vol.  6.  p.  562,  A.  D.  498,  tells  us  that  the  Emperor's 
faction  sustained  the  election  of  Laurentius  to  the  papacy.  In 
this  struggle,  "  murders,  robberies,  and  numberless  evils  were 
perpetrated  in  Rome."  Nay,  such  were  the  horrible  scenes  that, 
says  Baronius,  "  there  was  a  risk  of  their  destroying  the  whole 
city  !" 

In  the  schism  between  the  Popes  Sylverius  and  Vigilius,  in  the 
6th  century,  the  latter,  though  an  atrociously  wicked  man, — 
*^  implicated,"  says  Baronius, — "in  so  many  crimes,"  that  all  vir- 
tues men  opposed  him,  was  raised  to  the  papal  chair.  Yet  this 
man  was  pronounced  a  good  Pope.  Baronius  says  he  is  not 
to  be  despised  though  a  bad  man.  "Let  every  man  recollect, 
says  he,  "  that  even  to  the  shadow  of  Peter  immense  virtue 
was  given  of  God  !"     Bar.  vol.  7.  p.  420. 

In  the  midst  of  contentions  which  rent  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  Pope  Pelagius  I.  was  chosen. — This  Pope  approved  the 
Council  which  Pope  Vigilius  had  condemned.  This  increased 
the  flames  of  ecclesiastical  war  to  such  a  defrree,  that  the  Pope 
could  not  find  a  bishop  of  Rome,  who  could  consecrate  him  : 
and  he  was  constrained  to  beg  a  priest  of  Ostium,  to  do  this  ser- 
vice ^^  a  thing"  says  Baronius  (vol.  7.  p.  475.)  "  which  never 
had  occurred  before." 

The  Popes  Formosus  and  Stephen  lived  in  the  9th  century. 
The  latter  says  Baronius,  was  so  wicked,  that  he  would  not  have 
dared  to  enroll  him  in  the  list  of  Popes,  were  it  not  that  anti- 
quity gives  his  name.  In  the  excercise  of  his  infallibility,  he 
not  only  rescinded  the  ads  and  decrees  of  his  infallible  predeces- 
sor Formosus;  but,  collecting  a  council  of  cardinals  and  bishops, 
as  bad  as  himself,  he  actually  had  the  old  pope  taken  out  of  his 
grave;  and  he  brought  him  into  court;  tried;  and  condemned 
him;  cut  off  three  of  his  fingers;  and  plunged  his  remains  into 
the  Tiber.  See  Platinas  Life  of  Stephen  VI.  and  Baronius  do. 

Pope  Romanus  I.  in  his  turn,  abrogated  the  decrees  and  acts 
of  Stephen  VI.  "  For, "  says  Platina, — "these  Popes  seem  to 
have  thought  of  nothing  else,  than  to  extinguish  the  name  and 
dignity  of  their  predecessors."    Life  of  Rom. 

Genebrard,  in  his  Chronicles,  under  the  year  904,  says,  "  for 
nearly  150  years,  about  50  Popes— deserted  wholly  the  virtue 


94 

of  their  predecessors,  being  Apostate  rather  than  Apostoli- 
cal!" 

Baronius,  under  the  year  1004,  names  three  rival  Popes,  who 
perpetrated  the  most  shameful  crimes  and  bartered  the  Papacy, 
and  sold  it  for  gold.  He,  though  a  Roman  Catholic  writer,  calls 
them,"  the  three  headed  beasts,  which  had  issued  from  the  gates 
of  hell!" 

Bzovius  in  his  Eccles.  annals,  A.  D.  1411,  tells  us  that  after 
the  Council  of  Pisa,  the  head  of  the  Church  was  three  schisms, 
three  Anti-Popes. 

The  Council  of  Pisa  deposed  two  Popes,  whom  in  their  sen- 
tence, they  pronounced  notorious  heretics,  and  guilty  of  jjer- 
jury. 

,  The  Council  of  Constance  in  A.  D.  1414,  deposed  three  Popes, 
namely,  Benedict  XIII,  the  Spanish  Pope  :  and  Gregory  XII,  the 
French  Pope  ;  and  John  XXIII,  the  Italian  Pope. 

In  short,  so  early  as  A.  D.  1073,  there  had  been  no  less  than 
:25  schisms,  by  the  anti-popes,  and  the  general  profligacy  of  the 
Priests.     And  the  most  violent  ones  happened  after  that  date. 

Now  the  present  Pope,  and  all  his  prelates,  and  all  his  priests 
:are  as  incapable  of  tracing  their  succession  through  these  end- 
lessly broken  lines  of  papal  succession ;  as  are  the  present  Jews, 
of  tracing  their  descent  from  their  respective  tribes  and  families. 
It  is  all  idle  and  absurd  in  them  to  set  up  the  claims  of  apostoli- 
cal succession.  Their  own  Jerome  and  Gregory  Nazianzen  tell 
them  that  the  succession  is  that  of  piety  and  doctrine,  not 

THAT    OF    MERELY    SITTING  IN    THE     SAME   CHAIR,    OR  THRONE  !    On 

this  same  principle,  the  Turks'  or  Egyptians'  power  and  domi- 
nion in  Jerusalem,  worshiping  in  the  Mosque  of  Omar,  are  the 
true  aud  lineal  successors  of  Moses  and  AarOn,  and  the  Hebrew 
Church  of  old  ! 

Here  I  shall  add  an  appropriate  remark  of  Baronius.  At  first 
view  one  must  perceive  that  this  man,  though  a  Roman  Catho- 
lic writer,  seems  to  labor  to  make  out  the  case  that  your  church 
is  as  degenerate  from  the  once  Holy  church  of  Rome,  as  is  the 
Turk's  Mosque  at  Jerusalem,  from  the  pure  ancient  Hebrew 
church.  Hear  his  words  in  his  life  of  Pope  Stephen  VII.  A.  D. 
900.  "The  case  is  such,  that  scarcely  any  one  can  believe,  or 
ever  will  believe  it,  unless  he  sees  it  with  his  eyes,  and  han- 
dles it  with  his  hands,  viz.  What  unworthy,  vile,  unsightly,  yea, 
execrable  and  hateful  things  the  sacred  apostolical  See,  on 
whose  hinges  the  universal  apostolical  churph  turns,  has  been 
compelled  to  see,  &c." — "To  our  shame  and  grief  be  it  spoken, 
how  many  monsters,  horrible  to  behold,  were  intruded  by  them" 
(the  secular  princes,) "  into  that  seat  which   is  reverenced    by 


95 

angels !"  The  Holy  See,  he  adds,  is  '•'  bespattered  with  filth," 
"infected  by  stench,"  "defiled  by  impurities,"  and  "blackened 
by  perpetual  infamy  !" 

And  to  cap  tlie  climax,  your  own  Baronius,  under  the  year 
912  adds  :  "  What  is  then  the  face  of  the  Holy  Roman  Church  ! 
How  exceetlingly  foul  it  is  !  Wlien  most  potent,  sordid  and  aban- 
doned women  ["  ^Icrctriccs,"]  ruled  ai  Rome  ;  at  whose  will  the 
Sees  were  changed  ;  Bishops  were  presented  ;  and  what  is  horrid 
to  hear,  and  unutterable,  False  Pontiffs,  the  lovers  of  those 
women,  were  intruded  into  tiie  chair  of  St.  Peter,  &c."  He  adds 
— "  for  who  can  affirm  that  men  illegally  intruded  by  bad  women 
["  Scortis,"]  were  Roman  PontitVs  !"  Again  :  "  The  canons  were 
closed  in  silence  ;  the  decrees  of  Po-ntitis  were  suppressed  ;  the 
ancient  traditions  were  proscribed  ;  and  the  sacred  ceremonies 
and  usages  of  former  days  were  wholly  extinct  !"  [See  his 
annals,  A.  D.  9l2.] 

Here  we  have  evidence,  not  from  Protestant  authors,  but  from 
your  own  authentic  and  favorite  Baronius,  that  your  succession, 
in  all  senses,  is  completely  cut  off.  You  have  neither  Pope  nor 
Prelate,  nor  Priest,  nor  Sacrament,  nor  infallible  Rule  ! 

But  I  must  pause  here  for  want  of  space.  I  shall  endeavor  to 
finish,  in  my  next,  my  exposition  of  your  Rule,  and  will  in  due 
time  notice  your  objections.  I  have  them  on  file,  and  shall  ren- 
der them  all  justice  in  "  the  dependency"  of  our  argument.  You 
have  thi'ee  letters  to  my  one. 

The  slanderous  attacks  you  make  on  the  Reformers,  lean 
easily  repel,  by  saying  that  they  are  mere  fictions.  It  is  unmanly 
and  in  bad  keeping  in  Dr.  Varela,  to  proclaim  the  notorious 
Bolsec's  fiction.  He  was  the  last  man  that  a  son  of "  Holy 
Mother"  should  quote  ;  he  was,  as  you  well  know,  an  apostate 
Carmelite  Monk,  who  died  under  the  ban  of  your  church  :  and 
so  profligate  that  he  gave  his  wife  to  be  a  prostitute  to  the 
Holy  Canons  of  Autun  to  regain  the  Catholics'  favor.  He 
was  a  miscreant  hired  to  slander  Calvin  and  Beza.  And  you 
know  well  that  this  was  his  infamous  character.  [See  Lemprier, 
article  Bolsec]     Only  such  men  can  slander  Calvin. 

But  were  even  Luther  and  Calvin,  the  monsters  you  would 
wish  to  make  them,  this  aflects  not  the  question  in  discussion. 
We  never  made  these  men  our  living  spkaking  Rule  !  I  quoted 
your  profane  Popes  and  heretic  councils  quite  in  point ;  and  also 
the  errors  and  divisions  of"  Holy  Mother  Church,"  for  the  best 
reasons  in  the  world.  These  you  make  your  living,  speaking, 
and  infallible  Rule.  Suiely,  if  1  demonstrate  their  errors  and 
heresies,  I  annihilate  your  Rule.  But  as  our  rule  is  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  our  Judge  of  Controversy,  the  Holy  Ghost  speaking 


96 


vin  them,  not  as  understood  by  "  private  interpretation,"  but  as 
interpreted  by  God,  speaking  in  them  to  us,  surely  all  your  in- 
vectives against  the  Reformers  are  utterly  irrelevant  matter.  And 
>the  enlightened  public  will  decide. 

I  shall  finish  my  argument  against  your  Rule  and  then  minute- 
ly examine  all  your  objection. 

I  am,  gentlemen,  yours,  &c. 

W.  C.  BROWNLEE, 

One  of  the  ministers  of  the  North  and  Middle  Dutch  Churches. 
New  York,  March  20,  1833. 


97 

Reply  of  nrs.  Power  and  L,evin9j 

TO  DR.  BROWNLEE. 

No.  4. 

I  will  not  utterly  consume  thee;  but  I  will  chastise  thee  in  judgment,  that  thoumayest 
not  seem  to  thyself  innocent.     Jer.  30.  11. 

Rev.  Sir — In  the  days  of  Pagan  Philosophy  it  was  observed, 
that  an  honest  man  struggling  with  adversity,  was  a  spectacle 
worthy  of  the  Gods.  Whether  any  distinction  of  case  in  the 
object  of  their  contemplation  has  been  remarked  by  the  ancient 
Scholiasts  is  unknown  to  us; — that  is,  whether  the  Gods  be 
equally  aflected  by  the  patience  of  him,  who,  though  innocent, 
contends  with  the  bitterness  of  his  affliction,  and  of  him  who 
has  been  the  cause  of  his  own  woe.  Not  having  studied  the 
phases  of  mental  affection  to  which  the  Pagan  Deities  were  sub- 
ject, it  would  be  presumption  in  us  to  estimate  the  degree  of 
compassionate  admiration  they  would  extend  to  you  ;  but  it  is 
suspected  it  would  not  widely  differ  from  that  now  cherished  for 
you  by  your  controversial  opponents, — even  by  the  Members  of 
the  Middle  Dutch  Church,  your  sacerdotal  brethren,  or  to  ex- 
press it  briefly,  by  the  enlightened  among  your  "  christian  pub- 
lic." But,  whatever  may  be  the  gradations  of  pity  in  the  minds 
of  Pagan  Celestials,  there  is  a  fixed  standard  of  measure  among 
the  mortals  of  earih.  He  who  is  the  mechanist  of  his  own 
merited  misfortune  is  conceived  to  have  but  a  slight  claim  on 
'  pity.  He  who  rushes  headlong  into  difficulty,  without  calcula- 
ting results  and  consequences;  he  who  like  a  player  struts  forth 
on  the  public  stage  stiffening  his  hamstring  and  proclaiming  a 
CHALLENGE  iu  "  King  Cambyses'  vein,"  yet  fails  in  the  execution 
of  great  promise,  is  deservedly  a  mark  for  the  finger  of  deri- 
sion. He  who  idly  and  presumptuously  forms  a  false  estimate 
of  his  mental  strength,  though  familiar  with  the  *' Hebrew  and 
Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  and  summons  notoriety  to  his  prowess 
in  polemic  fight,  yet  cannot  establish  his  Rule  of  Faith  by  ar- 
gument and  logical  proof,  sinks  unpitied  and  unwept  to  that 
state  where  mock  and  gibe  are  his  comforters.  This  is  the  re- 
tributive justice  of  human  judgment, — and,  had  the  old  Scho- 
liasts philosophically  pondered  on  the  question,  a  similar  one 
might  have  been  discovered  among  the  crowned  heads  of  the 
Pagan  Heaven.  Were  it  your  destiny  to  have  been  present  at 
a  levee  day  on  the  summit  of  Olympus,  and  had  you  edified  the 
assembly  by  the  ribald  phrfises  and  gross  allusions  which,  in 
your  last  logical  epistle,  abound  in  such  unpruned  luxuriance, 
No.  7.— 13 


98 

the  punishment  of  the  old  blacksmith  of  Lemnos  would  have 
been  your  meed,  and  Minerva's  bird  would  have  derived  your 
fate.  ^ 

Passing,  however,  from  the  lighter  tone  of  these  remarks,  we 
would  seriously  interrogate  you,  Rev.  Sir,  is  your  last  letter,  no 
matter  how  interpreted  by  the  mind  most  biased  in  your  favor 
and  to  your  creed,  no  matter  iiow  enwrapt  in  contemplation  of 
your  exalted  worth  and  character,  is  your  last  letter  worthy  of  a 
scholar,  worthy*of  him  who  is  intimate  with  the  interior  spirit, 
and  familiar  with  the  '-Hebrew  and  Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost  9" 
Is  it,  in  any  sense,  a  logical  and  theological  production  ^  Does 
it,  even  remotely,  bear  on  the  matter  in  question — your  Rule  of 
Faith  ?  Does  it  evolve  any  of  the  important  queries  so  often 
required  of  you  ^ — Every  impartial  mind  will  say  it  is  as  distant 
from  the  point  at  issue  as  the  filth  of  the  Collect  is  from  the  far- 
thest orblight  in  Heaven's  firmanent  !  Between  it  and  the  reply 
you  should  have  given,  the  difference  is  as  wide  as  between  the 
architecture  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church  and  the  sublime  Tem- 
ple of  the  Catholic  Vatican  ! 

You  are  again  interrogated.  Does  your  last  letter  honor  the 
station  you  occupy?  Does  it  honor  the  Gospel  you  preach  to 
your  flock ;  that  Gospel  which  commands  the  love — even  of 
enemies'?  Does  it  honor  him  who  wastes  the  midnight  oil  over 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  who  "  evolves  the  meaning  by  all  pro- 
per  means,  should  there  be  any  thing  not  so  plain  as  at  first  view 
youwishT^  Does  it  honor  him  who  erects  his  Rule  of  Faith 
on  the  whisperings  of  the  interior  Spirit,  and  through  its  illumi- 
nations, selects  from  the  "  Hebrew  and  Greek  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  those  necessary  articles  of  creed  on  which  his  salvation 
depends*?  To  reconcile  the  aflfections  of  soul  evinced  in  your 
last  letter  with  the  gentleness,  urbanity,  and  religious  decorum, 
generally  supposed  characteristic  of  the  sacerdotal  garb,  is  a 
task  not  easily  effected.  It  is  as  difficult  as  to  blend  in  one 
system  of  rational  dependency  the  endless  and  irrevelant  topics 
on  which  you  have  endeavored  to  found  your  Rule  of  Faith  9 

A  theme  to  which  you  fondly  recur  is  the  "  glorious  liberty  of 
conscience"  secured  by  what  you  term,  the  "  ever  blessed  Re- 
formation !"  You  love  to  descant  on  it,  and  by  it  enlist  in  your 
favor  republican  feeling. — Is  it  a  part  of  the  glorious  liberty  to 
exhibit  the  ''  spleen  of  the  under  fiends"  in  your  polemic  "  squint- 
ingSy^  when  you  shun  the  real  point  in  question,  and  wantonly 
riot  in  disgusting  ribaldry?  Attend  to  the  monition  of  St. 
Paul, — "  if  you  bite,  take  heed  that  you  be  not  consumed."  You 
vaunt  your  intimacy  with  the  interior  Spirit !  Wheie  are  its 
fruits?     Are  your  vituperative  words  your  foul    allusions,  your 


99 

envenomed  drivel  against  Catholic  rites,  practices  and  ceremo- 
nies, its  fruits?  In  your  last  letter  you  designate  tlie  Clergy  of 
the  Catholic  Church  a  "  polluted  and  immoral  priesthood!"  Is 
this  a  fruit  of  your  interior  Spirit'-^  Is  this  proving  your  Rule 
of  Faith  and  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible*?  You  call  the  Catho- 
lic Church  the  *'  scarlet  woman  of  St.  John  !"  Is  this  a  fruit? 
Is  ih'is  your '*  Protestant  lesson  and  logic  T^  You  say  the  celi- 
bacy of  Catholic  Priests  is  *'  a  pleasant  joke," — an  ^'imposition 
on  the  rights  of  man  to  secure  all  the  monies  for  Peter's  purse!" 
Is  this  a  fruit  ^7  Is  this  Protestant  argument?  You  say  the  Ca- 
tholic Church  '*  brings  every  thing  into  market,  for  money,  even 
souls  and  bodies  of  men,  and  each  sin,  which  has  its  own  price 
in  the  Pope's  exchequer  book  I"  Is  this  a  fruit  9  Is  this  fiend- 
ish slander  one  of  your  proofs  to  establish  the  canonicity  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  that  the  Bible  contains  the  whole  of  the  word 
of  God?  Among  the  fruits  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  St.  Paul  enu- 
merates '•  charity,  peace,  benignity,  mildness,  modesty"  Are 
the  fruits  of  j[>r.  Brownlee's  spirit  like  to  these  9  But,  then, 
you  exultingly  '*  claim  to  be  a  gentleman,"  and  that  you  "  write 
for  the  members  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church  i"  What,  is  it 
thus  you  insult  your  flock  !  Thus  you  slander  them  !  Thus  you 
explain  the  "Hebrew  and  Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost"  to  them ! 
What,  you  "  write  for  the  members  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church," 
and  proclaim  the  clergy  of  the  Catholic  Church  a  '*  polluted  and 
immoral  priesthood  !" — Surely,  though  you  be  their  writer  and 
their  preacher,  they  cannot  sanction  the  filth  of  your  tongue, 
the  grossness  of  your  mind,  and  the  malignity  of  your  heart! 
If  they  do, — if  your  words  convey  the  real  estimate  of  their 
character,  we,  in  truth,  admit,  but  in  sorrow,  the  force  of  your 
observation,  that  the  members  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church 
*'are  very  different  people  from  the  flock  of  St.  Patrick's  Pas  tr." 
If,  when  it  is  avowed,  "you  write  for  the  members  of  the  Middle 
Dutch  Church,"  you  mean  that  they  approve  and  applaud  the 
virulent  pollutions  and  falsehoods  oozing  out  from  your  writings, 
then  we  say,  and  every  honorable,  manly,  and  christian  heart 
will  sanction  our  remark,  the  flock  is  worthy  of  the  Pastor,  and 
the  Pastor  of  the  flock.  But  it  is  not  possible — it  cannot  be 
believed.  The  virtuous,  the  enlightened,  the  manly  among  the 
members  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church  and  there  are  many  rich 
in  these  endowments  among  your  congregation — cannot  honor 
with  approval  your  impure  and  defiling  slander,  that  the  Catho- 
lic clergy  are  a  "polluted  and  immoral  priesthood  !"  Though 
you  proclaim  yourself  their  writer  and  their  preacher,  they  can- 
not venerate  him,  whose  heart  and  mind,  rankling  in  the  bitter- 
ness of  discomfiture,  and  writhing  under  tortures  of  defeat,  seek 


100 

ease  for  their  griefs  and  sorrows  in  the  basest  indulgence  of 
spleen  !  Unable  to  meet  your  antagonists  in  manly  and  logical 
argument, — disgraced  in  the  judgment  of  all  who  can  form  an 
opinion  of  your  artifices,  tricks,  and  cavils, — fallen  from  your 
high  estate  as  the  proclaimer  of  a  presumptuous  challenge — 
skulking  under  the  shelter  of  subterfuge  and  rank  slander,  into 
which  you  breathe  a  still  ranker  life, — a  prey  to  the  gnawings 
which  eat  into  your  very  heart's  core  under  defeat,  disgrace,  and 
dishonor,  you  sputter  out  the  morbid  secretions  of  an  envenomed 
will,  then  "claim  to  be  a  gentleman,"  and  honor  the  virtuous 
and  religious  members  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church  with  the 
sponsorship  of  your  ribaldry  and  rancor  I !  This,  for  a  gentle^ 
man,  theologian,  and  preacher,  is  a  strange  form  of  procedure, 
unusual  in  the  annals  of  religious  controversy.  The  main  topic 
under  discussion  is  avoided,  studiously  shunned,  and  you  name  it 
by  your  own  classical  term — ''squiniing.^^  You  shrink  from  the 
necessary  queries  so  frequently  put  to  you,  though  you  avowed 
their  "  infimte  imjwrtance,"  and  promised  to  "  discuss  them/rs/," 
and  this  you  call  ^'skirmishing.  You  designate  celibacy  of  the 
Priests  a  "  pleasant  joke,"  "  an  imposition  on  the  7'ights  of  man 
to  secure  all  the  moneys  for  Peter's  purse,"  and  yet  you  "claim 
to  be  a  gentleman."  You  say  the  Catholic  Church  "  brings 
every  thing  into  market,  for  money,  even  souls  and  bodies  of 
men,  and  each  sin  has  lis  own  price  in  the  Pope's  exchequer 
book,"  and  you  shout  "  Billingsgate."  You  deliriously  charge 
the  Catholic  clergy  with  bein^  a  polluted  and  immoral  priest- 
hood," piteously  whine  out  *  ^Blackguardism,"  and  invoke  the 
commiseration  of  the  members  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church 
against  the  lash  of  your  antagonists,  by  saying  you  are  "  their 
writer."  In  truth,  it  may  be  said,  "  the  tribulations  of  the 
just  are  many ;"  and  with  the  afflicted  Job,  you  may  exclaim, 
"the  arrows  of  the  Lord  are  in  me,  the  rage  whereof  drinketh 
up  my  spirit."  Job  6.  4.  But  your  cry  for  succour  from  your 
flock  will  be  despised  : — your  evasions,  subterfuges,  and  rancor- 
ous slanders,  are  profitless, — they  will  be  contemned. 

"Thou  may'st  toil  and  strain, 
Ransack,  for  filth,  thy  heart;  for  lies  thy  brain  ; 
RaVf,  storm  ! — "tis  fruitless  all." 

Consigning  you,  Rev.  and  gentlemanly  Sir,  to  the  sedative  in- 
fluence of  the  proceedinp;  remarks,  and  your  "claims  of  being 
a  gentleman"  to  the  members  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church  and 
the  "christian  public;" — committing  you  to  the  fostering  love  of 
your  '^most  virtuous,  pious  and  highly  intelligent  ladies,^^  who 
you  say  sat  in  judgment  on  the  luscious  slander  and  tale,  "  Lorette, 
or  the  history  of  a  Canadian  .TVwn,"  and  whose  verdict  is,  "  that 
it  must  be  printed  and  given  to  the  public  as  an  Instrument  of 


101 

instruction  for  their  sex" — (see  an  article  signed  Dr.  Brownlee 
in  last  Saturday's  '^Christian  Intelligencer," — the  Instrument  o( 
the  Middle  Dutch  Cliurch,) — we  proceed  to  your  last  epistle. 

We  have  read  tliis  exotic,  rather  this  Q,uix-otic,  production 
of  your  interior  Spirit;  and,  while  reading  it,  our  spirit  yearned 
after  the  '^form  of  sound  words  I"  Where  are  tlioy,  logical  and 
gentlemanly  Doctor *]  Reason  and  argument !  Where  are  they? 
Answers  to  our  queries !  Where  are  they?  Proofs  of  your 
claims  to  gentlemanship !  Where  are  they?  Pardon;  there  is 
one, — a  deep  damning  one  !  You  write  for  the  Members  of  the 
Middle  Dutch  Church,  and  drench  with  your  slaver  the  Catholic 
Clergy  by  denouncing  them  a  ^'polluted  and  immoral  Priest- 
hood." We  await  their  approval  of  your  claims; — we  await 
the  verdict  of  "  your  virtuous,  pious,  and  highlif  intelligent 
ladies"  who  correct  the  proof-sheets  of  your  7iew  bantling — the 

"  InSTRUiMENT." 

Again  our  queries  are  repeated.  To  your  ^'christian  public" 
and  your  flock  they  must  now  be  as  familiar  as  "household 
words." 

How  do  you  know  the  Bible  to  be  the  word  of  God  ? 

How  do  you  know  which  books  were  written  by  divine  inspi- 
ration ? 

Does  the  Bible  contain  the  whole  word  of  God,  or  does  it  not  *? 

Have  these  queries  been  answered  ?  Though  you  have  been 
tortured  by  the  iteration  of  them,  and  though,  under  the  evident 
excitement  of  the  interior  spirit,  you  a  second  time  affirm  in 
your  lost  epistle,  that  "  we  have  no  right  to  pronounce  sentence 
on  one  of  your  arguments,"  we  greet  you  in  the  gentlest  and 
most  gentlemanly  words,  suggest,  that  if  these  queries  have  been 
answered  and  proved,  the  answers  and  proofs  are  as  invisible  as 
if  surrounded  by  the  darkness  of  an  Egyptian  fog.  Condescend 
to  point  out  the  column  and  letter  of  the  Truth  Teller  in  which, 
they  may  be  found.  This,  if  done,  will  save  you  much  irrita- 
bility of  temper,  and  confer  on  you  the  title  of  a  logician  in  a 
slight  degree,  though  it  will  not  force  from  the  "  Christian  pub- 
lic*' an  admission  of  your  "claims  to  be  a  gentleman."  But  you 
assert  you  have  proved  your  Rule  of  Faith.  Where  9  in  your 
last  letter*^  Here  we  must  express  our  dissent  by  that  Jvery 
uncourteous  monosyllable — No.  Not  even  the  shadow  of  an 
argument  on  this  point.  Nothing  in  your  last,  but  an  assump- 
tion of  "  claims  to  be  a  gentleman," — that  you  "  write  for  the 
members  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church," — nothing  but  an  idle 
drivel  about  the  "  liberty  of  conscience," — American  Republi- 
cans,— a  startling  phrase,  anthropoi  alogoi,  to  prove  intimacy 
with  the  Hebrew  and  Greekjof  the  Holy  Ghost,— ".//■'"  ^^5  and 


Jews,^' — ''Ihe  Church  at  Jerusalem,  Antioch,"  &c. — "  Inish- 
owen," — '^the  cook  and  the  copper  kettle." — '^a  polluted  and 
immoral  priesthood," — "  the  Pope's  exchequer  book," — the  celi- 
bacy of  the  priests,  "  a  pleasant  joke/' — "  Mr.  Hughes  and  Bishop 
Milner," — a  bead  roll  of  Popes,  and  "  other  branches  of  learn- 
ing ! ! !" 

Thus  you  go  up,  up  up ; 

And  thus  you  go  down,  down  downy ;  • 

Thus  you  go  backward  and  forward,— 

Andj  heigh  for  your  logic,  dear  BfiowM-rc  ! 

The  proofs  of  your  rule  of  faith  are  not  in  your  last  letter,— 
they  were  not  given  in  your  former  letters.  Do  you  forget  our 
expositions  of  your  evasions  and  subterfuges  in  <nir  last  letter  '^ 
If  false,  why  has  it  not  been  controverted  ''}  Do  you  forget  your 
see-saw  logic  in  the  vicious  circle'?  You  assert  that  we  '^raised 
the  outcry  to  yield  the  point."     Where  9 

We  required  you  to  prove  your  rule  of  faith  9  It  has  not 
been  proved,  for  the  proofs  advanced,  that  is,  a  few  texts  of 
Scripture  were  shown  to  be  illogical  in  their  bearing.  Our  ex- 
position of  your  texts  is,  essentially,  admitted,  since  it  has  not 
been  disproved.  Hence  your  rule  has  not  been  yet  established 
by  argument.  Is  this  true  1  Answer  if  you  can,  and  show 
where  we  have  erred.  We  do  not,  we  did  not  solicit  you  to 
yield  the  point ;  proofs  are  demanded,  and  if  they  be  not  given, 
the  important  point  under  debate  is  surrendered  without  your 
admission.  It  is  worthless, — a  pretension  to  cheat  the  ignorant, 
and  gull  your  *'  Christian  public."  In  your  last  epistle  it  is 
affirmed  you  have  "established  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible  by 
its  own  internal  evidence,  and  by  external  proofs,  such  as  mira- 
cles, tongues,  prophecies ;  and  by  historical  evidence  and  tradi- 
tion also."  In  the  name  of  Truth,  for  truth  should  be  on  the 
lips  of  a  preacher  in  the  Middle  Dutch  Church,  when  and  where 
has  this  extraordinary  feat  been  performed  9  Where  are  your 
arguments'?  Assertion  may  dupe  your  '' virtuous  ladies"  to 
whom  you  submitted  the  verdict  of  your  "  Instrument  for  in- 
structing the  sex  ;"  assertion,  however,  is  not  argument  with 
your  polemic  antagonists.  But,  though  there  be  no  proof  of 
your  rule  of  faith  in  the  preceding  words,  there  are  admissions 
which  will  develope  matter  of  vital  importance,  at  a  more  ad- 
vanced stage  of  this  controversy.  At  present,  it  sufficiently 
serves  our  purpose  to  observe,  that,  your  dependency  on  the 
"churches,  Jews,"  &,c.  for  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  is 
an  abandonment  of  your  cause,  for  it  is  a  sunlight  proof,  the 
Scriptures  alone  are  not  your  rule  of  faith.  Mark  this,  weigh 
it,  place  it   in  your  see-saw   logic.     You  will  wriggle,  and  fret, 


103 

and  rave,  and  prove  yourself  *'a  gentleman,"  ere  this  be  Fescued 
from  our  clutch.  We  may  here  also  note  your  rash  assertion, 
*' that  our  rulo  never  can  be  found  out  on  our  principle,  or  em- 
ployed for  tlie  benefit  of  man."  What  is  our  principle  9  Sim- 
ply this, — the  Church  of  Christ  ruling  herself  by  the  Holy 
Scriptures  and  tlic  traditions  of  the  Apostles.  Will  you  pre- 
sume to  assert  the  Church  of  Christ  cannot  be  founds  But, 
since  the  Church  of  Christ  can  be  found,  and  this  is  admitted 
by  every  Christian,  it  follows  that  her  teaching  can  be  known. 
If  it  could  not  be  found,  then,  in  vain  did  Christ  establish  it. 

Your  register  of  and  tirade  about  the  Popes  is  out  of  place, 
of  no  consequence  to  the  real  matter  under  consideration — your 
rule  of  faith.  Where  have  we  said  the  Popes  were  the  Church 
of  Christ  7  Answer. 

Independent  of  the  absence  of  all  rational  proof  in  your  let- 
ters, there  are  serious  omissions  of  several  important  topics  in 
your  last  epistle.  You  "  solemnly  denied'^  that  Luther  rejected 
any  part  of  the  sacred  writings.  He  did  reject  a  part  of  them. 
Whv  shrink  from  the  important  argument  involved  in  this  rejec- 
tion 9  Is  it  worthy  of  a  Preacher  in  the  Middle  Dutch  Church^ 
Did  we  misquote  "  honest  John  Wesley,"  when  we  adduced  his 
words  as  practical  illustration  of  your  Rule  of  Faith  ?  Did  he 
not  adopt  your  private  spirit  while  interpreting  the  Scriptures, 
and  admit  "  he  might  possibly  have  mistaken  the  way  to  heaven." 
Have  you  consulted  Dr.  Bangs'?  Did  we  misquote  the  Protest- 
ant Doctor  Field,  Hooker,  Hare,  Middleton,  Warbuton,  Dudith, 
Calvin.  Reckless  of  truth,  and  utterly  indifferent  to  the  sacred 
character  of  your  station  as  a  Preacher,  you  asserted  that  ^^not 
one  sentence  of  inspired  Scripture  was  lost.^^  Did  we  misquote 
St.  Paul  !■  His  words  to  the  Colossians  and  Corinthians  have 
convicted  you  of  falsehood.  Will  St.  Paul  admit  '•'  your  claims 
to  be  a  gentleman.^''  When  your  inconsistencies,  contradictions, 
and  violations  of  sacred  truth  are  detected  and  exhibited  to  the 
eye  of  public  scorn,  why  blame  us,  why  pelt  us  with  your  gentle 
term — ^^  blackguardism ;^^ — why  allow  your  interior  Spirit  to 
manifest  its  infirmity — the  irritability  of  bitter  temper.  The 
cause  of  your  edifying  excitement  cannot  be  attributed  to  us. 
We  are  guiltless, — merely  discharging  a  necessary  duty,  a  duty 
imposed  on  us  by  your  challengi:  ;  merely  training  you  in  the 
ways  of  argument  and  love  of  truth,  not  "  Protestant  ride  and 
lesson;''''  merely  directing  your  steps  in  the  paths  of  discretion 
and  charity  to  your  neighbor,  Love  truth,  cultivate  sincerity, 
study  logic,  and  many  of  the  errors  into  which  you  liave  already 
fallen  will  be  avoided.  Cherish  intimacy  with  patience  as  you 
do  with  your  interior  spirit.     The  "  Hebrew  and  Greek  of  the 


104 

Holy  Ghost"  says;— *' He  that  is  patient,  is  governed  with  much 
wisdom  ;  but^e  that  is  impnUent  exalteth  his  folly.^^  Do  not  a 
second  time  assert  that  ''  not  one  sentence  of  inspired  Scripture 
has  been  lost'"  Do  not  again,  we  entreat  you,  contradict  St. 
Paul.  Fly  from  misrepresentation  and  falsehood  as  you  would 
from  the  adder  fanged.  "  Lying  lips,"  says  the  Bible,  <' hide 
hatred."  Be  gentle  in  your  words,  modest  in  your  allusions, 
and  do  not  permit  your  interior  Spirit  to  indulge  again  in  the 
gross  aspersion,  that  the  Clergy  of  the  Catholic  Church  are  a 
*'polluted  and  immoral  priesthood."  By  a  little  practice  in  this 
courteous  habit,  your  "claims  to  gentlemanship"  may  be  admit- 
ted, and  a  good  name  may  be  acquired  : — and  you  know  the 
Scripture  says,  "  a  good  name  mukelh  the  bones  fat."  Hoping 
you  mny  profit  by  these  salutary  words  of  counsel,  we  submit  to 
your  tutured  intellect  a  few  more  words  of  logical  comment  on 
your  Rule  of  Faith  and  discursive  letter.  For  your  sake  and 
the  sake  of  our  readers,  it  is  to  be  regretted  the  "  form  of  sound 
words"  has  been  neglected,  the  order  of  rational  procedure  con- 
temned. Still  the  usual  see-saw  oscillation  from  topic  to  topic, 
and  every  topic  more  distant  from  the  real  matter  under  discus- 
sion.    How  truly  may  Ovid's  words  be  applied  to  you, — 

"  Nunc  hue,  nunc  illuc,  et  utroque  sine  ordine  curro." 

You  have  told  us,  in  your  letter  No.  2,  the  Protestant  Church 
declares,  that  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  judge  of  controversy  is 
the  "  Holij  Spirit  speakirtg  to  us  in  the  written  word  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  of  the  New;  and  teaching  us  every  thing  neces- 
sary to  be  known  and  believed,  in  order  to  our  glorifying  God 
and  enjoying  him  forever."  These,  R-ev.  Sir,  are  your  own 
words.  Now,  v.'e  deny  that  Christ  ever  established  this  Protes- 
tant Rule,  as  the  only  rule  of  faith,  '  to  teach  every  thing  neces- 
Farv  to  be  known  and  believed,  in  order  to  our  glorifying  God 
and  enjoying  him  forever.'  You  have  seen  our  reasons  for  this 
denial,  and  you  have  not  even  as  much  as  approached  one  of 
them.  You  have  written  of  quidlibets  and  quodlibets,  of  any 
thin"-  and  every  thing,  it  is  true*  but  not  one  word  to  the  point, 

not  one  word  of  wisdom.     We  call  on  you,  in  the  face  of  the 

Biblical  world,  to  produce  one  single  text  of  scripture,  which 
tells  you  "that  the  only  rule  of  fi^ith  and  judge  of  controversy, 
established  by  Christ,  is  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  to  us  in  the 
written  word'  of  the  Old  Testament  and  of  the  New."  You 
who  profess  to  believe  nothing  for  which  there  is  not  Scripture, 
are  strictly  bound  to  favor  us  with  an  unequivocal  and  express 
Scriptural  [)roof,  on  this  all-important  point.  We  expect  this 
from  your  candor,    so  <lo  the  members    of  the  Middle    Dutch 


105 

Church, — so  do  the  '^christian  public."  One  appropriate  text 
from  the  Bible,  will  serve  you  more  in  this  cause,  than  all  you 
<;an  gather  from  "  The  History  of  Roman  Treasons"  by  Foulis, 
a  work  justly  styled  the  Grand  Arsenal  of  Anti-Catholic  ribald- 
ry, and  from  which  your  malignant  '*  Protestant"  has  so  copi- 
ously drawn.  Your  language,  Rev.  Sir,  does  not  become  your 
years  or  your  oi  thodoxy.  The  famous  Tertullian  leaves  scurrili- 
ty to  heretics  and  the  gentiles.  "  Spurciloquium  decet  hereticos 
at  Ethnicos."  Lib.  de  resur.  car. 

In  addition  to  the  many  arguments  we  have  already  adduced 
to  prove  that  the  Bible  alone  is  not  the  rule  of  faith  which 
Christ  established,  we  beg  leave  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fol- 
lowing suggestions. 

First,  When  Christ  sent  his  Apostles  to  convert  the  w^^rld,  he 
did  not  say  go  and  distribute  the  Scriptures  to  the  nations  of  the 
earth,  but  "  Go  into  the  whole  world  and  preach  the  gospel  to 
every  creature." — Mark  xvi.  15.  Why  were  not  the  Apostles  com- 
manded to  give  the  people  your  rule  of  faith,  if  \t  were  the  rule 
which  Christ  established.  Answer  this,  Rev.  Sir,  answer  it  as 
becomes  a  theologian  and  a  logician,  and  not  by  Calvinistic  rum- 
bling, evasions  and  petulance.  The  Catholic  alone,  Rev.  Sir, 
can  give  a  satisfactory  answer  to  him  who  asks,  why  Christ  did 
not  command  his  Apostles  to  distribute  the  Scriptures  to  the 
nations  of  the  earth?  He  will  say,  that  the  Scriptures  as  inter- 
preted by  every  man's  spirit^  were  never  intended  by  Christ  as  a 
means  of  conveying  religious  instruction.  For  religion  was  given 
to  the  uneducated  as  well  as  the  learned.  Now,  the  greater 
number  of  mankind  cannot  read,  and  no  divine  command  exists 
as  to  tlieir  being  obliged  to  study  letters.  Tell  us  then,  for  our 
information,  what  is  the  rule  of  faith  of  the  unlettered  Protestant? 
Is  it  that  book  which  he  cannot  read?  To  assert  this  would,  to 
use  your  own  words,  '^argue  a  derangement  in  the  moral  faculty." 
How  then  is  the  unlettered  Protestant  to  be  instructed  in  his  re- 
ligion 9  Dr.  Brownlee  and  the  Parsons  will  interpret  the  Bible 
for  him,  as  they  are  taught  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  poor  un- 
lettered man  is  seduced  into  the  belief  that  he  is  taught  by 
Christ  himself  and  not  by  proxy,  like  the  blind  papist! 

Secondly.  The  Bible  is  a  book  more  or  less  obscure  in  most 
parts  of  it,  and  full  of  things  *' hard  to  be  understood,  which  the 
unlearned  and  unstable  wrest  to  their  own  destruction.''  2  Peter 
iii.  16. — Some  texts  seem  to  contradict  others.  Several  appear 
lo  inculcate  the  very  vices  which  God  condemns.  Hence,  the 
worst  of  crimes  may  be  perpetrated  and  defended,  as  they  fre- 
quently have  been  on  the  supposed  authority  of  Scripture,  when 
Scripture  is  left  to  private  interpretation.     Dr.  Hev,  a  Pretest- 

14 


106 

ant,  in  his  Norrisian  lectures,  says  that  all  the  horrors  and  follies 
of  the  grand  rebellion  in  England,  even  the  murder  of  the  king, 
were  supposed  by  the  people  to  be  authorized,  by  certain  texts 
of  Scripture  ;  and  concludes  by  saying  that,  *^  it  would  evidently 
be  a  much  more  rational  plan  to  put  the  statutes  at  large,  into 
the  hands  of  the  illiterate  vulgar,  telling  them  to  become  their 
own  Lawyers,  than  to  put  the  text  itself  of  the  mysterious  Bible 
into  their  hands,  for  the  purpose  of  gleaning  therefrom  their  re- 
ligion and  morality.'^  See  liey's  Norrisian  Lectures,  Vol.  I.  p^ 
77.  This  learned  Protestant  Lecturer,  Ptev.  Sir,  clearly  teaches 
how  all  fanatics  have  understood  the  force  of  the  Protestant  terms 
your  **  liberty  of  conscience"  and  "  private  judgment."  Now  are 
we  so  "degraded  in  the  moral  faculty"  as  not  to  understand  their 
meaning  after  the  practical  commentary  of  more  than  two  hun- 
dred years,  which  all  Protestants  have  given  o^  ihosQ  seductive 
terms. 

Thirdly.  The  learned  among  Christians,  who  make  the  Bible 
alone  their  Rule  of  Faith,  cannot  agree,  as  to  its  meaning,  in  the 
most  important  points;  as  the  endless  variations  of  Protestants  on 
all  religious  subjects  prove.  Hence,  we  may  infer,  that  a  plain, 
well  meaning  man,  following  your  rule  may  spend  much  time 
every  day  of  his  life,  in  reading  the  Scriptures,  without  any  clear 
consistent,  or  settled  plan  of  religion  from  them. 

Fourthly.  The  Rule  of  Faith  previously  to  the  existence  of 
the  Scriptures  of  the  'New  Testament,  must  have  been  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Church  or  preaching  of  the  Gospel  by  men  sent  by 
God  ;  "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every 
creature."  Mark  xvi.  15.  The  first  preachers  were  endowed 
with  the  gift  of  miracles.  On  the  authority  of  those  miracles, 
the  nations  received  their  word,  and  consented  to  become  mem- 
bers of  the  Christian  Church.  The  nations  having  received  the 
word  preached  to  them  on  the  authority  of  miracles,  received 
afterwards  the  word  written^ox  them,  upon  the  same  authority. 
It  was  not,  therefore,  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures  that  brought 
the  nations  to  the  faith,  but  it  was  their  faith  founded  on  mira- 
cles, that  brought  them  to  receive  the  Scriptures  as  inspired 
writings.  When  miracles  ceased  to  accompany  the  preaching 
of  the  divine  word,  still  it  was  confirmed  by  the  miracles  first 
wrought.  They  were  wrought  in  proof  of  the  divine  founda- 
tion of  the  Catholic  Church  ;  of  the  divine  mission  of 
her  Pastors,  and  in  confirmation  of  Christ's  promise,  "that  the 
gates  of  hell  shall  never  prevail  against  her."  These  miracles 
lend  the  same  support  to  the  preaching  of  the  word  in  all  ages, 
when  done  in  the  same  communion,  and  by  virtue  of  the  same 
mUiionj  that  they  did,  when  preached  by  the  Apostles  themselves. 


107 

The  spirit  of  the  Apostles,  their  authority,  their  faith,  their 
mission,  were  not  to  die  with  them,  they  were  transmitted  as  a 
deposit  for  their  successors,  and  now  exist  in  the  Church  found- 
td  on  them,  as  truly,  and  work  there  as  effectually,  as  if  the 
Apostles  were  still  preaching  and  administering  the  Sacraments 
in  person, — "  Lo  I  am  with  you  always  "  We  need  not  add, 
Rev.  Sir,  that  they  who  separate  from  the  Church  founded  by 
miracles,  oppose  the  testimony  of  these  miracles  to  themselves, 
and  by  denying  her  authority  and  infallibility,  undermine  the 
canonicity  of  the  Scriptures,  which  they  have  stolen  from  her. 
These  observations.  Rev.  Sir,  prove  to  every  dispassionate  mind, 
that  Christ  never  intended  the  Bible  alone,  should  be  the  Chris- 
tian's rule  of  faith,  and  that  in  order  to  lead  mankind  to  a 
knowledge  of  the  Christian  Religion.  He  has  established  an 
authority  in  his  Church,  in  whatever  denomination  of  Christians 
that  Church  is  found,  to  which  all  are  bound  to  pay  due  defer- 
ence and  submission.  For  "he  gave  some  to  teach,  to  exhort, 
to  convince,  to  rebuke,  and  to  do  all  the  work  of  Evangelists"  ; — 
and  writing  to  the  Hebrews  the  Apostle  says,  "obey  them  that 
have  tl^e  rule  over  you  and  submit  yourselves,  for  they  watch 
over  your  souls,  as  they  that  must  give  an  account."  Heb.  xiii. 
17.  Here  Christians  are  told  to  be  submissive  to  their  Pastor. 
But  what  becomes  of  this  submission,  when  every  man,  accord- 
ing to  you,  is  taught  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  the  written  word  of 
"God  1^  Truly,  Rev.  Doctor,  if  we  imagined  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
speaks  to  all  in  the  written  word  of  God,  we  could  not  see  how 
our  divine  Lord  could  have  encumbered  the  world  with  Pastors. 
So  far  from  thinking  that  Christian  Ministers  hold  a  divine  com- 
mission, we  should  look  on  them  as  useless  lumber. 

Can  you,  Rev.  Doctor,  adduce  Scripture  evidence,  that  the 
gospels  in  the  New  Testament  were  actually  written  by  the 
blessed  Apostles  and  Evangelists,  whose  names  are  attached  to 
them  9  Is  it  possible  for  you  to  prove  by  any  other  means,  than 
tradition,  that  the  Sabbath  of  the  Jews  was  changed  by  the 
Apostles  to  the  first  day  of  the  week  9  What  other  proof  can 
you  give  except  that  of  tradition,  for  the  custom  of  infant  baptism. 
Will  you,  Rev.  Sir,  insist  on  your  right  of  conscience  to  disbe- 
lieve these  things,  because  they  are  destitute  of  scripture  proof? 
We  believe  you  will  not.  If  you  did,  there  would  be  an  end 
to  your  preaching  in  the  Middle  Dutch  Church.  The  Church 
of  England,  one  of  your  Protestant  Churches,  believes  and 
practices  many  things  with  reference  to  the  only  two  Sacraments 
which  she  retains,  which  are  not  found  in  Scripture.  With  re- 
gard to  baptism,  she  uses  this  form  of  words,  "i  baptize  thee  in 
the  name^^  &c.  which  is  no  where  commanded  or  even  mention- 
ed in  the  Bible.     Christ  indeed  commands  this  sacrament  to  be 


108 

administered  in  the  name  of  three  divine  persons,  but  Scripture 
does  not  say  that  he  commanded  any  words  to  be  used  as  a  form  : 
It  is  from  tradition  that  we  learn  it.  She  also  admits  the  validi- 
ty of  baptism  administered  by  schismatics,  which  can  only  be 
proved  from  tradition.  With  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper^  their 
form  of  consecration  consist  in  reciting  the  history  of  the  Insti- 
tution; but  we  do  not  find  in  Scripture,  that  Christ  commanded 
the  Ministers  of  this  sacrament  to  read  that  history  over  the 
bread  and  the  cup.  It  says,  that  Christ  commanded  them  to 
do  as  he  did  ;  but  not  that  he  commanded  them  to  make  the 
history  of  it  a  form  of  consecration.  These  things,  Rev.  Sir, 
are  borrowed  from  the  Catholic  rule, — the  testimony  of  the 
Church. 

We  shall  now  endeavor  to  illustrate  our  ideas,  by  a  few 
quotations  from  a  sermon  preached  by  Archdeacon  Hook  in  St. 
Paul's  Cathedral,  London,  in  1S18.  This  sermon  is  published 
with  the  annual  report  of  the  society  for  promoting  christian 
knowledge,  for  18 IS.  This  Protestant  dignitary  strenuously 
reprobates  the  principle,  and  is  this  your  rule  of  faith,  "  that 
every  man  is  to  be  left  at  liberty  to  interpret  the  Bible  in  his 
own  way,  and  call  therefrom  his  religion."  And  why  ?  Be- 
cause "  the  Bible,  though  an  inspired  work,  does  not  convey 
inspiration."  Again,  '*  if  every  man  may  worship  God  in  his 
own  way,  why  may  he  not  equally  claim  to  interpret  the  law  of 
the  land  in  his  own  way  ^  Conscience  may  as  readdy  be  made 
the  test  of  obedience  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other."  In  ano- 
ther place  he  says,  '^  not  only  are  we  told  in  the  apostolic  writ- 
ings, in  opposition  to  the  prevailing  maxims  of  the  present  day, 
that  there  are  things  hard  to  be  understood  in  the  Holy  Scrip- 
lures,  but  which  is  of  still  higher  import  to  christian  men,  than 
that  the  tilings  hard  to  be  understood,  may  be  and  have  already 
been  wrested  to  their  destruction,  and  that  by  men  prone  to 
change  and  immersed  in  ignorance,  "  hy  the  unstable  and  un- 
learned.''^  2  Pet.  iii ;  St.  Paul  tLacliu.s  that  faith  cometh  not  by 
fanciful  interpretation,  nor  by  the  partial  induction  of  ignorance, 
but  by  '^  hearing,"  and  "  hearing  by  the  word  of  God.  Rom.  x, 
17.  Now,  Rev.  Sir,  could  any  Catholic  Bishop  or  Priest  reason 
more  clearly  or  more  powerfully  against  the  Bible  and  the  Bible 
only  as  n  rule  of  faith  ^ 

The  Kev.  A.  C.  Callaghan,  a  minister  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, has  written  two  pamphlets  on  the  subject;  we  recommend 
to  your  Calvincity,  the  following  quotation  from  his  second  pam- 
phlet: *' Take  away  from  the  Bible  the  interpretation  of  the 
church,  and  every  man's  passions  will  be  his  own  interpreters." 
See  the  pamphlet  entitled,  "  The  Bible  Society  against  the 
Church  and  State ;  and  the  Primitive  Christians  and   the  Bible 


109 

against  the  Bible   Society."     Second   edition,  printed  for   G. 
Walker,  Paternoster  Row,  London,  1818. 

We  put  the  question  fairly  to  you,  Rev.  Doctor,  and  we  en- 
treat you  to  view  it  dispassionately  ?  Must  not  the  generality 
of  mankind  necessarily  rely  on  the  learning  and  fidelity  of 
others,  in  order  to  come  to  the  knowledge  of  Christ's  doctrine. 
We  think  there  is  no  possible  way  of  avoiding  it  without  a  con- 
tinued miracle  of  immediate  revelation.  First,  if  vvc  look  back 
to  the  commencement  of  Christianity,  we  shall  find  that  the 
New  Testament  was  written  by  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists 
chiefly  in  Greek,  which  tongue,  though  admitted  to  have  been 
the  most  generally  known  of  any  one  tongue  then  spoken  in  the 
East;  yet,  that  every  fAird  christian  understood  that  language 
is  not  to  be  admitted. 

Secondly.  Neither  was  the  Scripture  immediately  translated 
into  every  tongue,  where  Christianity  was  preached. 

Thirdly.  Nor  could  poor  mechanics,  laborers,  servants  and 
slaves,  procure  it,  when  translated,  before  the  invention  of  the 
art  of  printing.  In  the  early  days  of  Christianity,  and  down  to 
a  late  period,  the  price  of  a  single  copy  of  either  Testament 
could  not  be  given  by  any  among  the  poorer  classes  of  society. 

Fourthly.  There  could  not  have  been,  until  the  art  of  print- 
ing was  discovered.  Bibles  sufficient  for  half  the  Christians,  nay, 
for  the  greater  number  of  them,  even  if  they  had  the  means  of 
purchasing  them. 

Fifthly,  Even  now,  when  by  means  of  the  press,  every  one 
has,  or  may  have,  a  Bible  in  the  vulgar  tongue,  how  is  it  possi- 
ble that  the  vulgar  should  know  of  themselves  that  it  is  the  woi'd 
of  God?  That  it  has  been  kept  free  from  corruption  in  things 
of  necessary  belief  and  practice  !  That  it  is  faithfully  translated 
from  the  originals  !  That  considering  the  indefinite  variety  of 
doctrines  contained  in  it,  and  almost  in  every  page,  how  they 
should  be  able  and  have  leisure  to  con  out  of  it  a  summary 
of  belief,  since  millions  of  them  are  necessitated  to  spend  near- 
ly all  their  time  in  severe  toil,  to  procure  a  wretched  livelihood 
for  themselves  and  families?  That  they  should  be  able  to  com- 
pare places  of  Scripture  so  effectually  as  rightly  to  settle  seem- 
ing contradictions,  in  points  of  faith,  when  we  well  know  that 
it  is  with  difliculty  they  are  brought  to  understand  plain  and 
common  things^  "WMien  we  seriously  reflect  on  these  things, 
we  think  it  strange,  that  our  most  gracious  Redeemer  would  re- 
quire of  the  poor  ignorant  people  to  pick  out  their  religion 
through  the  exercise  of  their  own  scanty  intellect  from  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  or  to  depend  on  their  own  weak  capacities,  for  de- 
tecting the  true  sense  and  interpretation  of  it. 


110 

When  reason  tell^  us,  that  the  multitude  must,  of  necessity, 
trust  to  others  for  the  truth  of  the  translation  of  Scripture,  let 
an  irrefragible  reason  be  given,  by  you,  why  they  should  not  as 
well,  and  might  not  as  safely,  give  credit  to  those  for  the  sense 
of  it,  who  are  in  prudence  to  be  entrusted,  for  the  sincerity  of 
the  vei'sio7i,  since  it  is  to  be  presumed  that  their  teachers  under- 
stand it  to  be  a  true  translation  no  farther,  than  they  know  the 
se7ise  of  the  words  translated.  Notwithstanding  these  plain 
truths,  Rev.  Sir,  we  know  how  frequently  and  vehemently  Cal- 
vinistic  Parsons  cry  out  to  the  people  from  the  pulpit :  "  believe 
not  uSf  believe  the  Scripture"  as  if  the  most  ignorant  of  their 
auditors  were  thought  by  them,  to  be  the  proper  judges  of  th^ 
Scripture  meaning.  Thus  you  and  your  fellow  preachers,  impose 
on  the  people,  by  telling  them  they  do  not  believe  by  "  proxy." 
But  though  your  words  import  that  your  auditors  are  the  proper 
judges  of  the  sense  of  Scripture,  if  we  sift  the  matter  thoroughly, 
we  shall  discover  that  you  gentlemen  preachers  intend  otherwise. 
When  you  say  "  believe  not  us,  believe  the  Scriptures,"  you 
either  intend  the  texts  you  quote  for  a.  proof  of  what  you  teach, 
or  you  do  not.  If  you  intend  them  for  a  proof  of  what  you 
teach,  your  meaning  must  be  this  :  believe  us,  not  for  our  own 
sakes,  but  for  the  Scriptures ;  that  is,  believe  us,  because  we 
teach  the  very  same  doctrine,  which  the  Scripture  teaches ;  or, 
believe  the  Scripture,  in  the  same  sense,  \n  which  we  alledged 
— for  to  believe  it  in  any  other  sense,  would  not  have  the  effect 
of  a  proof.  But.  if  you  have  no  intention  to  use  the  Scriptures 
which  you  quote,  as  a  proof  of  what  you  preach,  do  you  quote 
them  only  to  humor  and  gratify  the  people  9  This  you  will  not 
readily  admit,  consequently,  your  quotations  from  Scripture  are 
adduced  as  proofs,  and  when  you  say,  "  believe  not  us,  believe 
the  Scripture,"  you  do  not  intend  that  the  truth  of  your  doctrine 
should  stand  or  fall,  according  as  your  auditors  may  think  it  to 
agree  or  disagree  with  the  places  of  Holy  Writ  to  which  they 
are  directed  for  the  truth  of  what  you  deliver.  Do  you  not, 
therefore,  throw  dust  in  the  eyes  of  your  M.  Dutch  Church  au- 
dience, when  you  tell  them,  that  they  are  not  to  believe  i/ow,  but 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  are  you  not  ashamed  when  you  have  the 
audacity  to  assert,  that  Protestants  judge  for  themselves  in 
matters  of  religion,  and  that,  in  this  respect,  "  you  do  not  put 
their  consciences  in  your  pocket." 

We  have  proved,  and  we  trust  to  the  satisfaction  of  your 
"  Christian  public,"  that  the  multitude  cannot  make  a  right  use 
of  Scripture.  Are  we  not,  therefore,  authorized  to  conclude, 
that  the  Scripture,  was  never  intended  by  our  Savior,  as  the  only 
Rule  of  faith  9     Are  we  not,  therefore,  authorized  to' adopt  with 


Ill 

the  Holy  Fathers  and  the  greatest  lights  of  Protestantism,  the 
tradition  of  the  Churcli,  which  instructs  every  one  from  the  ruler 
to  the  peasant,  in  all  the  aiiicles  of  the  Christian  faith  !■  But, 
you,  mosi  erudite  Doctor  and  preacher  in  the  Middle  Dutch 
Church,  are  better  pleased  to  take  the  poor  and  illiterate  to  one 
book,  which  they  cannot  use  or  properly  understand,  or  rather, 
to  your  own  interpretation  of  that  book,  as  we  have  already 
shown,  than  to  the  thousand  and  one  folios,  and  all  the  other 
**  heap  of  stuff  that  has  floated  down  on  the  nniasmatic  air  of 
sixteen  hundred  years  I" 

You  are  mistaken,  Rev.  Sir,  by  imagining  when  we  tell  you 
that  the  Scriptures  were  not  given  by  our  Lord  to  be  our  only 
Rule  of  Faith,  but  that  you  are  to  have  recourse  to  the  living 
and  speaking  tribunal  which  he  has  established,  in  order  to  teach 
you  religion,  that  we,  therefore,  put  you  to  the  study  of  the  Fa- 
thers, scholastic  divines,  the  Councils,  &c.  No  such  thing, 
Rev.  Sir,  we  take  you  to  your  old  Mother,  who  is  the  "pillar  and 
ground  work  of  truth"  in  whom  the  Lord  placed  some  to  be 
Doctors,  Slc.  Your  great  mistake,  is  in  suppposing  the  Rule 
of  Faith  was  made  and  intended  by  God  to  be  put  in  the  hands 
of  every  man.  It  would  be  absurd  to  suppose  it;  and  therefore, 
the  old  distinction  of  Eclesia  docenSy  and  Ecclesia  discens,  that 
is,  the  Church  teaching  and  the  Church  taught,  is  good  and  ne- 
cessary to  be  practically  maintained  and  upheld  by  Christians. 
To  the  former,  consisting  of  Prelates,  and  Pastors,  the  Deposi- 
tum  or  Rule  of  faith  is  entrusted  ;  and,  that  they  may  use  it  to 
its  proper  end,  Christ  promised  to  be  with  them  forever — to  send 
them  the  Spii^it  of  truth,  in  order  to  teach  them  all  truth,  and 
that  we  "  may  not  be  tossed  to  and  fro  by  every  wind  of  doctrine." 
That  those  Prelates  and  Pastors,  who  have  the  Rule  of  Faith, 
and  are  its  interpreters,  can  be  more  easily  found  than  in  the 
words  of  your  happy  and  gentlemanly  allusion,  "  Paddy's  Kettle," 
will  be  proved  on  a  future  occasion  to  your  disgrace  and  confu- 
sion. 

We,  Rev.  Sir,  admit  that  every  christian  ought  to  be  able  to 
give  a  reason  for  the  hope  that  is  in  him,  and  that  he  ought  to 
know  why  he  believes  all  and  every  article  of  his  creed  ;  but  we 
are  far  from  allowing  the  people,  to  oppose  their  own  judgment 
to  that  of  the  Church  of  God  in  matters  of  Faith.  Such  a 
judgment  would  be  one  of  intolerable  and  pernicious  indiscre- 
tion. It  must  astonish  and  arouse  the  compassion  of  every 
reflecting  mind,  to  see  the  ignorant  grossly  led  by  your  Preachers 
to  believe,  that  they  are  able  of  themselves  to  understand  the 
Scriptures  in  all  things  necessary  to  salvation,  when  it  is  for  in- 
structing them  right  in    these  very  things,  that   our  Savior  ap- 


lis 

pointed  Spiritual  Guides,  and  Governors  over  them,  and  his 
Holy  Church.  You  and  your  compeers  know,  that  the  wise  and 
gracious  God,  in  the  economy  of  his  great  family,  the  world, 
has  provided  and  placed  several  men,  skilled  in  several  things; 
some  in  civil  government,  some  in  Laws,  some  in  the  Medical 
Art,  &.C.  and  all  for  the  good  of  the  community  that  men  may 
be  aided  in  those  things  wherein  they  are  presumed  not  to  have 
skill  enough  to  act  for  themselves.  But  you,  in  opposition  to 
the  wise  arrangement  of  Providence  inculcate  a  principle,  which 
leads  man  to  despise  those  who  have  been  appointed  by  the  Son 
of  God,  to  watch  over  his  faith  and  morals,  and  to  become  his 
own  instructor,  in  the  learning  and  management  of  those  things, 
wherein,  if  he  finally  miscarry,  he  is  lost  to  eternity.  If  this  be 
not  the  "  consummation  of  wickedness,"  we  are  at  a  loss  to 
know  in  what  wickedness  consists. 

These,  Rev.  Sir,  are  a  few  of  our  reasons  for  rejecting  the 
Protestant  Rule  of  Faith,  as  defined  by  you.  Have  we  not 
shown,  even  on  the  authority  of  the  most  renowned  Protestants, 
that  the  Scriptures  cannot  possibly  prove  their  own  inspiration. 
This  point,  says  the  learned  Hooker,  '*it  is  impossible  for  the 
Scripture  itself  to  teach.  See  Eccles.  Pol.  L.  1.  S.  14.  Doctor 
Covel,  in  his  defent-e.  Art.  p.  31.  says,  "  it  is  not  the  word  of 
God  that  does  or  can  assure  us,  that  we  do  well  to  think  it  the 
word  of  God."  How  then  do  we  know  it  to  be  the  word  of 
God  ?  Doctor  Covel,  in  his  defence  of  Hooker's  five  books.  Art. 
4,  says,  *'  the  first  outward  motion  leading  men  so  to  esteem  of 
the  Scripture  is  the  authority  of  God's  Church."  Now,  we 
have  asked  you  to  prove  from  the  Scriptures  alone  the  fact  of 
their  inspiration,  not  because  it  revealed  our  weak  side,  but  be- 
cause it  exposes  yours  to  a  total  overthrow.  The  inspiration  of 
the  Scriptures,  is  an  article  of  Protestant  faith.  This,  as  Protest- 
ants themselves  allow,  cannot  be  proved,  by  the  Scriptures. 
Therefore,  the  Scriptures  alone,  are  not  the  Rule  of  Faith  which 
Christ  established. 

Your  attack  on  the  great  Milner,  reminds  us  of  the  well  known 
fable,  the  Jack  ./Jss  kicking  the  dead  Lion.  You  know  well 
that  he  shook  Protestantism  to  her  centre  and  in  her  strongest 
hold.  You  also  know  that  his  antagonist,  Sturges,  was  a  pro- 
found scholar.  There  VvTjs  something  palpable  in  the  writings  of 
Dr.  Sturges.  No  vague  assertion — no  quiblin<];;  no  aberrations 
from  the  established  rules  of  disputation.  The  difficulties  on 
both  sides  were  fairly  stated,  and  manfully  met  ;  for  they  wrote 
for  the  literary  world,  and  not  for  a  conclave  of  old  women,  and 
and  it  is  to  this  that  we  are  indebted  for  the  "  Letters  to  a  Pre- 
bendary," a   work  which    attracted    the    notice   of  the    British 


113 

Senate,  and  which  will  transmit  the  name  of  its  immortal  author  to 
the  remotest  posterity.      You    phice  him  by  the  side  of  Tom 
Paine,  for  sayini;  tliat  "  Christ  gave  no  orders  to  his  Apostles  to 
write  the  New  Test;unent !"     If  the  Bible  be  your  only  Rule  of 
Faith,  you  cannot  believe  that  Christ  did  give  any  such  com- 
mand to  his  Apostles.     Produce  the  text  if  you  can,  and  if  you 
cannot,  why  believe  he  did  command  his  Apostles  to  write  the 
New  Testament?     Oh,  but  they  were  Apostles,  and  they  had 
the  gift  of  miracles,  and  because  they  took  the  trouble  of  writing 
to  some  Churches,  they  must  have  been  commanded  so  to  do, 
and,  therefore,  we  believe  they  were  inspired  when  they  wrote. 
But,  most  learned  Doctor,  did  not  Barnabas,  who  full  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  of  faith,  (see  Acts,  xi.  24,  and  who  was  also  an  Apos- 
tle ;    see  Acts  xiv.    13)  write  an  epistle,  whose  authenticity  is 
admitted  by  Dupin,  and  Dr.  Lardner;  see  "Credibility  of  the 
Gospel  History,"  vol.  viii.     Why  is  not  this  epistle  a  part  of  your 
Rule  of  Faith  9     How  do  you  know  that  ho  was  not  inspired  1^ 
How  do  you  know  that  he  got  no  command  from  Christ  to  write 
this  epistle'?     Answer  tiiese  questions  by  your  Rule  of  Faith. 
When  you  do,  you  will  regret  having  troubled  the  repose  of  the 
great  Milner.     You  shrink  from  the  point  at  issue.    By  indulg- 
ing your  puritanical   rancor  against  the  Popes.     This  is  the  or- 
dinary trick  of  heretics.     They  endeavor  to  blind  their  followeri 
by  exposing  the  vices  and  frailties  of  a  few  men,  forgetting  that 
they  were  men,  and  only  the  ministers  of  a  religion  established 
by  a  crucified   God  and  his  holy  Apostles.     Do  you  forget  that 
the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  sat  in  the  Chair  of  Moses  9     Did  our 
Lord  tell  the  people  that  they  were  to  be  despised  9     Was  the 
College  of  the  Apostles  the  Synagogue  of  Satan,  because  Judas 
happened  to  be  an  Apostle?     But  this  is  straying  from  our  sub- 
ject.    It  is  incumbent  on  you  to  prove,  that  the  Scriptures  were 
given   to  man   as  his   only  Rule   of  Faith.     It   is  incumbent  on 
you  to  show,  that  tiie  Church  of  Christ  is  not  the  guardian,  and 
the  depository,  or  the  interpreter  of  the  sacred  Scriptures.     We 
are  not  involved  in  the  claims  of  any   particular  Church  to  the 
glorious  prerogative  of  being  Christ's  only  spouse.     This  is  not 
the  question  at  issue.     Our  question  is  an  abstract  one— name- 
ly whether  the  Scriptures,  as  interpreted  by  every  individual,  be 
the  Christian's  Rule  of  Faith,  or  whether  he  is  to  take  the  sense 
of  the  Scriptures  from   the   Church  of  Christ.     Our  respective 
claims   to  the   distinction  of  being  Christ's  Church,  must,  obvi- 
ously, be    reserved   for  future  discussion.     We  shall   meet  you 
on  the  subject  of  our  divisions,  which  never  involved  a  point  of 
faith,  when  we  satisfy  ourselves  on  the  present  point — your  Rule 
of  Faith      But   we  cannot   conclude,  without   expressing  our 
No.  8.— 15 


114 

great  surprise  at  the  divisions  of  Protestants  with  regard  to  the 
very  essence  of  religion,  seeing  that  they  are  taught,  as  they 
assert,  by  Christ  himself,  under  the  "guidance  of  the  Spirit  of 
God."  How  came  it,  then.  Rev.  Doctor,  that  your  most  apos- 
tolic man,  Luther,  who  was  sent  by  God  to  give  light  to  the 
world,  defended  until  death,  the  true,  real,  and  substantial  pre- 
sence of  Christ's  body  in  the  Sacrament,  and  that  he  gave  Zuing- 
lius  his  sincere  curse,  for  not  having  followed  the  light  of  his 
lantern  '?  Do  not  Protestants  think  the  dignity  of  Bishops  found- 
ed on  God's  word  '^  And  do  not  you,  after  your  predecessor 
Martin  Mar  prelate,  cry  out  "  that  their  calling  is  unlawful;  that 
they  are  Ministers  of  Anti-Christ,  worse  than  the  friars  and  monks, 
Devils'  Bishops,  and  Devils  incarnate.  See  sermon  of  Martin 
Mar  prelate,  printed  in  1590. — Strange  that  the  written  word 
of  God,  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  could  guide 
these  men,  sent  by  God  himself  into  such  opposite  extremes. 
When  next  impelled  by  your  interior  spirit.  Rev.  Sir,  to  criticise 
pur  dissentions,  we  beg  of  you  to  ponder  well  the  words  of  our 
blessed  Lord,  '^Hypocrite,  cast  out  first  the  beam  out  of  thine  - 
own  eye,  and  then  shalt  thou  see  clearly  to  cast  out  the  mote  of 
thy  Brother's  eye." 

Again  you  are  entreated  to  prove  your  Rule  of  Faith,  and  to 
answer  those  queries  of  "infinite  importance,"  which  like  the 
"smooth  pebbles  selected  from  the  brook,"  smite  the  Goliah  of 
the  Calvinistic  host.     Excuse  the  iteration. 

How  do  you  know  the  Bible  to  be  the  word  of  God"? 

How  do  you  know  which  books  were  written  by  Divine  inspi- 
ration*? 

Does  the  Bible  contain  the  whole  word  of  God,  or  does  it 
not? 

If  you  cannot,  as  a  Logician,  and  Theologian,  as  a  '^Gentle- 
man," Writer,  and  Preacher  in  the  Middle  Dutch  Church  solve 
these  queries  of  "infinite  importance,"  we  refer  you  to  the  assist- 
ance of  those  "  virtuous  and  highly  intelligent  ladies,"  who  you 
say,  have  passed  a  favorable  verdict  on  your  "  Instrument  for  the 
instruction  of  the  sex.     "Lorette,  or  the  Canadian  Nun."  :/ 

We  are,  your  gentlemanly  servants,  M 

JOHN  POWER,  1r 

THOMAS  C.  LEVL\S,  ■% 

JSfew  York,  March  27thy  1833. 


115 

Jlrs.  Broivnlec^s  MjCtter,  JVo.  5. 

TO  DRS.  POWER,  k  VARELA,  &  MR.  LEVINS. 

"  Therefore  will  I  put  my  hook  in  thy  nose,  and  my  briJle  in  thy  lips,  ami  I  will  turn 
thee  back  by  the  way  by  which  thou  earnest. — Isaiah's  Message  to  Sennacherib,  ch. 
xxxvii.  39. 

INTRODUCTION. 

Priests — 1st.  ^'  How  do  you  know  the  Bible  to  be  the  Word 
of  God  9" 

Ans. — 1st.  From  their  external  evidence  of  prophecy,  and  of 
miracles  ;  and  the  gift  of  tongues  :  from  internal  evidence,  name- 
ly, their  majesty,  their  purity,  their  sublimity  :  their  efficacy  in 
convincing,  converting,  and  comforting  :  their  perfect  harmony 
in  all  their  parts:  finally,  from  their  uncorrupted  preservation  : 
and  from  the  historical  evidence  of  their  tradition,  from  the  He- 
brews and  Jews ;  from  the  Greek  Church  ;  from  the  African 
Church  ;  from  the  Church  of  the  Albigenses  and  Waldenses  : 
and  from  the  Roman  Church.  All  these  unitedly  handed  down 
the  Holy  Scriptures  to  us. 

Priests — 2d.  "  How  do  you  know  which  books  were  written 
by  divine  inspiration?  The  Bible  cannot  prove  its  own  inspira- 
tion." 

Ans. — 2d.  The  authors  of  each  of  the  books  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  first  gave  evidence  before  the  Church,  by  working 
miracles  and  prophecying  and  speaking  tongues,  that  they  were 
the  accredited  messengers  of  God.  This  being  settled,  they 
wrote  those  books  which  bear  their  names,  at  the  command  of 
God.  '*Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  was  the  evidence  they  were  en- 
joined to  speak  and  write.  [See  Hos.  viii.  12.  John  xx,  31. 
Rom.  XV.  4.  2  Tim.  iii.  16.  Rev.  i.  11.  &c.  also  the  beginning 
of  each  of  Paul's  epistles.]  Having  written  them  by  inspiration, 
they  delivered  them  publicly  to  the  Church,  certified  m  their 
hand  writing.  And  the  Churches  in  Asia,  and  in  Greece,  and 
in  Africa,  and  in  Italy,  and  in  all  Europe,  handed  them  down 
faithfully  from  generation  to  generation;  just  as  the  Magna 
Charta  of  England,  or  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  is,  by 
tradition,  handed  down  from  age  to  age.  And  it  was  just  as 
impossible  to  add  to  these  holy  writings,  or  to  abstract  from  them 
without  immediate  detection,  one  book,  or  even  one  sentence, 
as  it  is  impossible  without  detection  to  add  to  these  great  nation- 
al documents.  And,  finally,  just  these  books  which  compose 
the  Bible,  and  no  other  books  whatever,  have  had  these  evi- 
dences. And  thus  we  know,  by  the  most  certain  demonstration, 
what  books  were  given  to  us  by  divine  inspiration  :  and  what 
books  are  not  inspired  ;  and  therefore,  apocryphal. 


116 

Priests. — 3d.  "  Does  the  Bible  contain  the  whole  of  the 
Word  of  God  ? 

Ans. — 3d.  It  does.  And  the  same  evidence  which  establishes 
the  fact  of  their  Divine  inspiration,  fully  establishes  this.  There 
is  no  inspired  book  lost.  Those  books  referred  to  by  Deists, 
and  the  Komish  Priests,  as  lost,  such  as  Jasher,  and  certain 
epistles  and  gospels,  vt^ere  not  given  by  inspiration.  And  we 
defy  all  the  priesthood  of  Rome  to  prove  their  inspiration.  The 
fact  is  this, — it  is  just  as  impossible  that  any  of  the  inspired 
books  could  be  lost,  by  the  carelessness  of  the  church,  or  the 
cunning  of  the  enemy,  as  it  is  impossible  that  a  book  of  the 
Common  Law  of  the  United  States,  or  of  old  England,  or  any 
part  of  the  Magna  Charta,  or  our  Declaration  of  Independence 
can  be  abstracted  and  lost  ! 

Such  a  supposed  loss  could  not  take  place  in  the  days  of  the 
Apostles;  for  they  could  bear  their  testimony  to  all  that  was  in- 
spired ;  and  against  all  that  was  forged.  It  could  not  take  place 
after  their  death,  for  before  the  death  of  the  last  of  the  Apostles 
namely,  John — copies  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  even  of  the  entire 
and  perfect  canon,  were  multiplied  over  Asia,  Africa,  and  Europe. 

Priests — 4th.  "  How  can  you  prove  the  Scriptures  alone  are 
the  sufficient  rule  V^ 

Ans. — 4th.  From  the  testimony  of  Almighty  God  himself, 
speaking  unto  us  in  them.  See  Psalm  xix.  7.  Isaiah  viii.  19. 
20.  John  XX.  21.  2  Tim- iii.  15— 17.  2  Peter  i.  19.  Gal.  i. 
8,  9.  Revel,  xxii.  18,  19.  From  this  testimony  of  God  the 
Christian  can  take  no  appeal.  But  the  Deist  will  still  continue 
to  renew  the  query  for  proof.  [See  Home's  Introd.  vol.  1.  and 
Jones  on  the  canon,  &c.] 

As  the  Priests  do  not  seem  to  read  my  letters;  and   do  not  of 
course,  wish  to  see  my  repeated  answers  to  their  queries,  to  gratify 
them,  and  save  them  the  trouble  of  reading  them  through,  I  shall 
continue  to  place,  if  necessary,  this  introduction  at  the  head  of 
all  my  letters,  as  long  as  I  am  detained  on  the  Rule  of  Faith. 

Rev.  Gentleman, — Engaged  as  I  am  in  a  great  and  holy  cause, 
— the  defence  of  Truth,  in  consequence  of  the  renewed  chal- 
lenges of  the  Romish  Priests  and  their  partisans, — I  am  not 
willing  to  be  turned  aside  by  any  irrelevant  matter,  or  inferior 
topic  :  infinitely  less  to  stoop  so  low,  as  to  notice  the  disgusting 
ribaldry  of  Mr.  L.'s  last  three  letters.  The  hope  was  indulged 
that  the  singling  him  out  and  placing  him  on  a  pedestal,  in  all 
his  unenviable  parapharnalia,  like  one  of  the  ancient  Stylites 
on  his  column,  in  bold  relief  before  the  public, — would  have 
brought  him, — if  not  to  sober  reason,  and  courteous  language, 
— at  least  to  some  degree  of  compunction    for  his  infliction  on 


117 

decent  morals,  and  his  dcistical  assaults  on  the  Holy  Bible,  and 
his  blasphemous  taunts  on  the  Holy  Ghost ; — but  it  is  all  in 
vain.  And  yet,  tlie  evil  will  work  its  own  cure.  He  must  share 
the  fate  of  the  incurable  Leper;  and  by  the  public,  be  put  forth 
without  the  camp  !  He  has,  we  know,  already  excited  the  dis- 
gust of  Protestants,  not  only — but  of  every  honorable  and  polite 
Catholic  ;  and  even  of  his  own  Reverend  associates, — '^Quem 
Deus  pcrdere  vult,  prius  dementat." 

My  readers  will,  I  dare  say,  have  learned  already,  from  this 
stage  of  our  argument,  that  it  is  not  by  fair  and  manly  argument 
that  Popery  seeks  to  advance  itself;  but,  on  the  contrary,  by 
throwing  a  veil  over  its  most  repulsive  and  haggard  features. 
Every  Protestant,  and  every  patriot  ought  to  make  himself 
thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  peculiar  attribute  of  Popery, 
namely,  its  singular  power  of  elasticity,  in  adapting  itself  to  each 
country  ;  to  all  times,  and  places;  and  to  the  peculiar  habits 
of  thinking  among  a  people.  With  the  Jesuit  among  the  Chinese, 
it  permits  the  natives  to  worship  deceased  fathers  and  mothers, 
on  the  trifling  condition,  that  they  change  the  nomenclature: 
and  call  them  Holy  St.  Peter  :  and  St.  Paul :  and  St.  Dommick  : 
and  the  Holy  Mother  !  Or  with  the  Canadian  Jesuit  among  the 
Indians,  it  gains  the  ear  of  the  savage  warrior  by  "  representing 
Jesus  Christ  as  an  ancient,  and  brave  warrior,  who  excelled  all 
his  compeers  in  killing  and    scalping  the  foes  of  the  tribe  I" 

Its  gross  doctrines  it  carefully  conceals,  among  civilized  and 
refined  people, — it  is  in  its  government,  not  only  monarcliical, 
but  feudal,  and  of  the  very  essence  of  absolutism,  in  its  claims 
of  authority  over  the  souls,  consciences  and  bodies  of  its  vota- 
ries. Witness  the  absolute  supremacy  of  his  Holiness,  over  his 
prelates;  and  that  of  tiie  prelates,  over  the  priests;  and  that  of 
the  priests  over  the  souls,  bodies,  and  properties  of  the  simple 
faithful ! 

Yet,  while,  in  the  very  essence  of  its  priestly  power,  it  is  all 
hostility  to  Republican  freedom  :  and  cannot  be  otherwise,  from 
its  solemn,  public,  sworn  allegiance  to  the  foreign  protentate  of 
Rome  ;  it  gravely  aflfects  to  raise  its  hosannahs  in  favor  of  our 
glorious  and  free  institutions  !  I  speak  not  of  all :  I  can  name 
in  the  Romish  communion  as  enlightened  and  loyal  hearts  as 
ever  beat  in  a  gallant  bosom  :  and  many  of  these  excellent  men 
we  have  in  our  city.  I  speak  of  the  Romish  priesthood  :  and 
those  who  basely  yield  to  their  absolutism  and  usurpation  of 
what  neither  God,  nor  any  honest  man  ever  gave  them. 

It  is  a  truth  which  I  am  anxious  to  impress  on  all  my  readers, 
that  there  has  been  no  change  ;  no  improvement;  no  reforma- 
tion in  the  spirit,  and  power,  and  designs  of  Popery.     The  spirit 


118 

is  precisely  the  same,  this  day,  in  its  secret  haunts,  in  our  city, 
and  over  the  land,  as  it  is  now  in  Italy,  and  Spain  :  and  it  is  the 
same  here,  and  in  Italy,  as  it  ever  has  been  in  the  darkest  ages 
of  Europe.  There  is  a  delusion  abroad  in  the  land,  namely  ; — 
that  there  has  been  a  singular  improvement  in  it;  and  that  it  is 
entirely  different.  To  make  this  impression  on  the  American 
generous  mind,  has  been  the  incessant  labor  of  the  Jesuits  among 
us  ever  since  they  lost  their  foothold  in  Europe.  They  have 
swarmed  in  disguise,  in  these  United  States.  And  the  extent 
of  this  delusion,  and  lethargy,  and  indifference  to  the  pure  prin- 
ciples of  the  Reformation,  demonstrates  the  influence  of  the 
Jesuits,  banished  from  every  government  of  Europe, — in  per- 
suading and  seducing  our  fellow  citizens.  The  "Holy  Mother" 
and  her  sons  are  the  same  now,  as  when  they  convulsed  the  na- 
tions of  Europe.  The  old  Lion  has  had  his  claws  pared  ;  and 
his  teeth  broken  ;  but  he  is  reclining  in  his  den — en  couchant — 
until  his  teeth  and  his  claws  shall  have  grown.  His  spirit  is  the 
same  ;  unbroken  ;  unsubdued  ;  untameable.  And  our  fellow 
citizens,  whose  characteristic  and  liberal  charity  has  been  un- 
generously imposed  on,  do  verily  pay  them  no  compliment,  in  a 
Jesuit's  estimation,  when  they  call  them  an  improvement  on  the 
doctrines  and  regimen,  and  tyranny  of  the  Papal  court  in  dark 
ages.  Do  you  not  know  that  in  paying  them  this  compliment, 
at  which  every  son  of  Loyola  smiles  in  his  sleeve,  you  actually, 
though  unwittingly,  are^robbing  them  of  their  pre-eminent  attri- 
hutc  of  immutability  I  This  is  not  unlike  the  manner  in  which 
Ibe  Catholic  princess  of  the  old  world  have  learned  to  treat  his 
Holiness.  They  bow  dov»^n  to  him  and  caress  him,  as  the  holy 
iipostolical  F'ia/r  of  Christ ;  while  they  send  potent  armies  to 
beleaguer  his  city,  and  plunder  him,  as  a  temporal  prince  ! 

All  the  diflerence  wliich  can  be  supposed  to  exist  between 
•ancient  and  modern  Popery,  arises  from  this  elastic  attribute  of 
adapting  itself  to  the  times;  and  the  habits,  and  religious  free- 
dom of  a  thinking  people.  And  hence,  as  our  readers  see,  our 
main  task  is  to  exhibit  their  real  and  accredited  principles,  in 
t'.ieir  standard  works  ;  and  contrast  these  pretended  modern  views, 
put  on  en  masque,  until  the  day  (may  it  never  happen,)  when 
their  anticipated  ascendancy  shall  take  place  in  our  land  ;  to 
destroy  the  Protestant  religion  ;  and  annihilate  our  republican 
institutions. 

We  have  proved,  I  trust,  to  the  satisfiiction  of  every  candid 
Christian,  thal^what  the  llornan  Catholic  Church  calls  \is  infalli- 
ble Rule  of  Faith  never  can  be  found  out,  or  reduced  to  any 
practical  purpose  :  that  Ciirist  never  established  that  rule  in  his 
Church:  and  that  even  if  he  did,   the   line  of  succession  in  the 


119 

Roman  Catholic  Church,  is  entirely  broken  off :— the  line  of 
apostolical  succession,  in  holiness,  in  doctrine,  and  the  pastoral 
office  is  broken,  and  lost  by  them  irretrievably.  The  blow  which 
severed  the  last  bond  of  apostolical  union,  and  succession,  was 
struck  by  that  assembly  of  ungodly  men  who  formed  the  Council 
of  Trent ;  and  whom  your  own  flither  Paul,  in  his  great  history 
of  it,  called  ^'  a  camp  of  incarnate  demons  !"  This  succession 
is  gone  from  the  Romish  Church,  like  the  departed  glory,  which 
in  the  holy  visions  of  Ezekiel,  was  seen  hovering  long  over  the 
threshold,  and  then  over  the  city,  and  finally,  took  its  flight! 

No  sound  theologian  ever  said  that  the  holy  universal  Church 
of  Christ,  either  has  been,  or  can  be,  cut  oft'.     She  has  existed  in 
her  glory  and  beauty,  as  the  spouse  of  Christ,  since  the  days  of 
Adam,  down  through  all  the  revolutions  of  time  and  of  empires, 
even  to  this  hour.     Unlike  the  Church  of  Rome,  which   by  her 
own  confessions,  rests  on   a  mortal   man,  the  rock  Peter, — the 
Holy  Church  of  God  is  founded   on  the  eternal  rock   of  ages, 
even  Jesus  Christ ;    and  the  gates  of  hell  cannot  prevail  against 
her.     She  advances  in  splendor,  and  an  ever  increasing  lustre  of 
accumulating  glory,  as  she  advances  in  days,  and  in  years ;  and 
moves  forward,  leaning  on  the  arm  of  her  espoused  Lord,  to  take 
possession   of  all  nations,    and   kingdoms   on   earth  I     And  the 
long  line    of  her  successive  pastors  and  teachers,  has  ever  con- 
tinued, unbroken,    till  now,  and  will  through  all  days,  unto  the 
consummation  of  all  things. 

This  holy  Universal  Church  may  not,  at  all  times,  be  visible. 
In  the  days  of  Ahab,  the  spiritual  church  was  not  visible  :  it  did 
not  stand  visibly  out  with  its  pastors  and  teachers.  Yet  it  existed 
in  the  ministrations  of  Elijah,  and  in  the  persons  of  the  7000  who, 
though  unknown  even  to  that  holy  prophet,  had  not  bowed  the 
knee  to  Baal.  So  also  in  the  general  apostacy  of  the  Christian 
era,  this  spiritual  society  did  not  stand  visibly  out  with  the  holy 
and  pure  ministers,  and  her  congregated  assemblies,  in  public. 
Yet  there  ever  was,  in  Asia,  in  Greece,  and  amid  the  dens  and 
caves  of  the  west  and  south  of  Europe,  an  unbroken  succession 
of  holy  witnesses ;  with  their  unbroken  line  of  pious  pastors, 
and  teachers ;  raised  up,  as  their  martyred  fathers  closed  their 
lives,  and  sealed  the  testimony  with  their  blood: — raised  up  by 
the  call  of  Divine  Providence,  and  the  call  of  the  faithful  church  : 
a  two- fold  call,  essential  to  the  true  ministry;  a  two-fold  call, 
which  no  Roman  Catholic  priest  ever  had ;  or  ever  thought  of 
claiming. 

These  are  the  sentiments  of  the  apostolical  and  primitive  fa- 
thers, such  as  Jerome,  Tertullian,  and  Pope  Liberius  himself; 
whom  we  shall  quote  at  full,  when  we  come  to  discuss  the 
claims  of  the  Roman  Catholics  to  apostolical  succession. 


ISO 

If  Protestants  would  keep  in  view  these  Catholic  sentiments 
of  the  church  of  Christ,  relative  to  succession  ;  and  did  we  care- 
fully keep  in  view  the  fact  that  the  true  church  of  Christ  has, 
all  along  existed,  and  has  been  perpetuated  in  Asia,  in  the  Greek 
church,  and  in  the  west  and  centre  of  Europe,  by  the  holy  bands 
of  witnesses  in  the  east :  and  by  the  ancestors  of  the  Albigenses 
and  Waldenses,  during  the  whole  course  of  the  Romish  aposta- 
cy, — every  one  would  be  prepared  to  answer  the  usual  quibble 
of  the  Roman  Catholics, — "  Where  was  your  religion  before 
Luther?"  The  Holy  church  of  Jesus  Christ,  has  from  the  days  . 
of  Adam  been  rolling  on  like  the  streams  of  our  own  great 
Mississippi,  and  becoming  deeper  and  wider,  and  more  and  more 
majestic,  as  she  flows  on  the  bosom  of  time.  But  the  Roman 
Catholic  church  and  the  numerous  sects  in  her,  like  so  many 
Bayous,  bursting  through  the  banks  of  that  noble  river  and  thread- 
ing their  heavy  and  muddy  courses  through  the  adjacent  lands, 
has  been  diverging,  in  the  course  of  years,  farther  and  farther 
from  the  pure  rivers  of  the  water  of  life,  which  issue  from  the 
sanctuary  and  throne  of  God.     But  we  now  go  on  to  our — 

VI.  Argument  against  the  Roman  Catholic  Rule  of  Faith  ; 
namely: — The  proof  which  the  Romish  writers  bring  in  behalf 
of  your  rule,  is  not  only  involved  in  contradictions ;  but  is  founded 
in  arrogant  and  blasphemous  assumptions. 

"Popery,"  says  Bishop  Hall,  (works  p.  351.)  "  Popery  de- 
stroyeth  the  foundation  ;  and  instead  of  the  true  foundation,  it 
lays  a  double  new  foundation  ;  the  one  a  new  rule  of  faith ;  and 
the  other  a  new  author  or  guide  of  faith."  Instead  of  Christ,  as 
the  judge,"  Popery  put^:  a  man,  the  man  of  sin.  He  must  know 
all  things,  can  err  in  nothing;  he  directs,  informs,  commands, 
animates,  both  in  earth  and  purgatory  ;  expounds  the  Scripture, 
canonizes  Saints  ;  forgives  sins,  and  creates  new  articles  of  faith  ; 
and  in  all  these,  is  absolute  and  infallible  as  his  Maker!" 

Planting  themselves  on  the  ground  of  this  rule,  the  Roman 
priesthood  intrude  themselves  between  the  human  intellect,  and 
the  Creator  ;  and  declare  themselves  lord  of  the  reason  and 
judgment,  and  consc;ience  of  man  ;  that  man  shall  not  think  for 
himself,  nor  exercise,  in  religion,  the  rights  o^  private  judgment. 
They  stand  up  between  God  and  his  own  accountable  subjects, 
and  declare  to  them  in  the  very  presence  of  the  Almighty,  that 
they  shall  not  hear  God's  word,  as  he  speaks  it  to  them  :  that 
they  shall  not  he  permitted  "  to  hear  what  the  spirit  saith  unto 
the  churches  :"  that  they  shall  hear  it  only  as  the  corrupt  and 
interested  priesthood  choose  to  explain  it;  that  all  the  authority 
of  the  Bible  is  derived  from  them,  and  their  church  :  that  no  man 
shall  take  on  him  to  worship  God,  as  Christ  prescribes  ;  but  as 
the  Romish  priesthood  prescribes;  that  the  spirit  of  God  speak- 


i21 

jng  in  the  scriptures  shall  tiot  interpret  the  word  to  them  j  but 
that  the  priesthood  shall  do  it.  And  thus,  the  Almighty  is,  as  far 
OS  they  can  eflect  it,  prevented  from  speaking  in  his  own  man- 
ner, and  uttering  his  own  plain  and  holy  truths  to  his  own  crea- 
tures. The  priesthood  rise  up  in  the  face  of  God,  our  Judge, 
and  the  only  and  supreme  Lord  of  cociscience,  and  tell  him  that 
they  will  take  out  of  his  hands  the  guidance  of  the  human  con- 
science ;  that  to  them  men  shall  confess  their  sins  :  that  they 
shall  receive  absolution  of  sin  from  ihem  ;  that  they  will  provide 
a  supply  of  intercessors,  and  'Mhe  holy  mediatrix  the  Virgin 
Mary  ;  and  that  they  will  interpose  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  in 
Christ's  stead  !  And  finally,  they  pronounce  the  Bible  taken 
alone,  to  be  a  fiiUacious  rule;  and  maintain  the  human  rule  of 
their  own  invention  infiillible,  and  not  liable  to  mistake  or  mis- 
appreliension. 

And  to  sustain  these  claims  to  Divine  honors  for  *'  the  man  sit- 
ting in  the  temple  of  God,"  let  us  hear  the  doctrine  of  their 
church.  They  claim  for  their  Pope,  or  the  church,  the  power 
of  appointing  new  articles  of  faith.  I  am  aware  that  a  strong 
party  among  them  deny  this  .  but  the  Roman  party  does  main- 
tain it.  Pope  LeoX.  condemned  Luther  for  denying  this  power ; 
SSee  his  Bull  added  to  the  last  Council  in  Lateran  ;  and  bishop 
er.  Taylor's  works  p.  392.]  And  T.  S.  Aquinas  and  Almain  ex- 
pressly assert, — "That  the  Popes  of  Rome  by  defining  many 
things,  which  before  lay  hid,  symbolum  fidei  augere  consuesse, 
are  accustomed  to  enlarge  the  symbol  of  faith."  And  every 
body  knows  that  twelve  articles  were  added  to  the  creed,  by  the 
Council  of  Trent. 

Bellarmine  [Lib.  7.  cap.  17.] — "the  supreme  Pontiff  is  sim- 
ply and  absolutely  above  the  church  ;  and  above  a  general  Coun- 
cil, &,c."  He  adds  the  following — which  no  one  can  clear  from 
the  charge  of  blasphemy, — "All  the  names  which  in  the  Scrip- 
tures are  applied  to  Christ,  proving  him  to  be  above  the  church, 
are,  in  like  manner,  applied  to  the  Pontiflf:  as,  first,  Christ  is 
pater  familias,  head  of  the  family,  in  his  own  house,  which  is  the 
church.  The  Pontiff  is  high  steward  in  the  same,  that  is,  he  is 
pater  familias,  in  the  place  of  Christ,  loco  Christi." 

And  hence  the  titles  of  Pope,  on  the  pages  of  these  writers, 
who  advocate  this  doctrine.  He  is  ''  Deus  alter  in  terra,"  "an- 
other God  on  earth  :"  "  the  Lord  our  God  the  Pope."  "  Idem  est 
dominium  Dei  ac  Papce;"  "  The  dominion  of  God  and  the  Pope 
are  the  same!"  "  the  infallible  one."  And  Pope  Clement  the 
Vn.  arid  his  Cardinals,  in  their  letter  to  King  Charles  VL  say, 
"  As  their  is  only  one  God  in  Heaven,  so  there  cannot,  and  there 
ought  not,  to  be  but  one  God  on  earth  !"  meaning  himself— see 

16 


Troissard,  torn.  3.  p.  147.  Mussus,  Bishop  of  Bitonto,  called 
the  Pope,  "  Him  who  is  to  us  as  our  God  ;"  and  the  Bishop  of 
Grenada  styled  him — "  a  God  on  earth  not  subject  to  a  council." 
And  in  Bellarmine's  noted  saying,  we  have  this  doctrine,  (Lib. 
4.  de  Rom.  Pont.  c.  5.)  "But  if  the  Popes  should  err  by  enjoin- 
ing vice,  and  forbidding  virtues,  the  Church  teneretur  credere, 
&c.  would  be  bound  to  believe  vices  to  be  good,  and  virtues  to 
be  wicked,  unless  she  would  be  willing  to  sin  against  con- 
science !"  Pope  Leo  X.  in  his  Brief  of  Nov.  9,  1512,  declared 
that  "  as  Vicar  of  Christ  on  earth,  he  had  power  to  forgive  by  vir- 
tue of  the  keys,  the  guilt  and  punishment  of  actual  sins,  &c." — 
[See  Dupin,  vol.  iv.  p.  17.]  The  doctors  and  canonists  declare 
that  the  Pope  can  dispense  against  the  Apostles  and  the  Old 
Testament.  And  Bellarmine,  lib.  4.  de  Poenit.  c.  13,  says,  when 
speaking  of  the  Pope's  Indulgences,  "  we  are  not  bound  to  bring 
forth  fruits  worthy  of  repentance  ; — non  teneamur  pr^cepto  illo, 
de  faciendis  dignis  poenitentiae  fructibus."  And  finally,  the  Pope 
is  invested  with  all  power  in  heaven,  and  on  earth.  All  civil 
government  are  under  his  dominion.  The  Pope,  says  a  Council, 
which  had  Gregory  VIL  at  its  head, — "  ought  to  wear  the  token 
of  imperial  dignity  ;  all  princes  ought  to  kiss  his  feet."  Pope 
Inocent  IlL  said, — ''  the  church,  my  spouse  is  not  married  to 
me  without  bringing  me  something."  And  he  goes  on  to  state 
that  dowry,  namely,  the  spiritual,  and  the  temporal  crown  in 
plentitude  ;  "  that  others  may  say  of  me,  next  to  God,'  out  of  his 
fulness  have  we  received  !'"  Hence,  in  times  of  European  deg- 
radation, he  trampled  under  foot  all  the  laws,  and  the  magistracy 
of  the  European  kingdoms. 

"  Qui  Satanam  non  odit,  amet  tua  dogmata  Papa !" 

And  as  if  they  attempted,  without  compunction,  the  utmost 
limit  of  impious  daring,  they  claim  power  to  do  what  Christ  him- 
self never  did  ;  namely,  "  to  redeem  souls  out  of  purgatory." 
And  those  accredited  Romanists,  who  licensed  that  marvellous 
book,  the  Revelation  of  St.  Bridget,  sucli  ns  Turrecremata,  and 
others,  gave  sanction  to  that  declaration  ihat  ''  the  good  Greg- 
ory, sua  oratione,  &c.  by  his  supplications  raised  aloft  to  '  altio- 
rem  gradum,'  a  loftier  grade,  even  the  infidel  Caesar*"  [Morn. 
Exer.  88.] 

Such  are  the  arrogant  and  blasphemous  claims  set  up  by 
means  of  their  infallible  rule  !  "  By  their  fruits  shall  ye  know 
them."  That  which  originated  "  all  this  decieveableness  of  un- 
righteousness," cannot  be  of  God  ;  but  must  be  the  main  pillar 
of  bis  cause,  "  whose  coming  is  after  the  work  of  Satan  with  all 
power,  and  signs,  and  lying  wonders." 

Vil  The  history  of  your  church  establishes  this  position,  that 


123 

it  is  false,  in  fact,  that  there  is  any  such  thing  as  an  in'allible 
rule  in  her.  If  there  was  infaUibility  in  the  "  Holy  Mother," 
or  in  the  Pope,  by  the  "  intallible  exercise,"  of  their  ''  infallible 
rule,"  then,  most  assuredly,  it  would  not  be  too  much  to  expect 
something  like  sanctity,  and  pure  morals,  in  his  Holiness,  and  in 
his  court.  We  have  shown  that  in  regard  to  our  rule,  all  dis- 
orders, and  existing  divisions  in  the  Protestant  Churches  arise 
from  their  not  fully  listening  to.  nor  entirely  obeying  the  Al- 
mighty, commanding  men,  in  his  own  law.  But  no  evils,  no 
errors,  no  divisions,  are,  or  ever  have  been  caused  by  the  Bible. 
To  charge  this  on  the  holy  law,  is  to  charge  it  on  God  Almighty 
himself!  But  in  your  case  it  is  entirely  different.  We  do  show 
that  your  rule  is  corrupt,  and  your  Head  the  Pope  is  corrupt ! 
and  your  Church  is  corrupt.  And  it  is  the  very  exercise  of 
your  infallible  rule  that  does  actually  cause  all  these  errors  and 
divisions  in  the  midst  of  you  ! 

Now  let  any  candid  man  look  at  the  Court  and  priesthood  of 
Rome  where  this  infallible  Rule  is,  in  its  purest  influence  and 
operation.  And,  gentlemen,  you  know  as  well  as  1  do.  what 
that  eminent  divine  of  your  Church  has  written, — Claude  D'Es- 
pence,  "Shameful  to  relate  !  They  gave  permission  to  priests 
to  keep  concubines — upon  paying  an  annual  tax  !"  This  is  only 
a  tithe  of  sacerdotal  impiety.  And  yet  you  affect  to  marvel  at 
my  charging  them  with  "  immorality  and.pollution."  Can  it  be 
possible  that  you  do  not  know  what  '^chastity"  means  among 
priests  ?  But  hear  your  own  doctor  : — "  There  is  a  printed  book 
which  has  been  sold  for  a  considerable  time,  entitled,  the  Taxes 
of  the  Apostolic  Chancery,  from  which  we  may  learn  more  enor- 
mities, and  crimes,  than  from  all  the  books  of  the  Summists. 
And  of  these  crimes,  there  are  some  which  persons  may  have 
liberty  to  commit  for  money  :  while  absolution  from  all  of  them, 
after  they  have  been  committed,  may  be  bought."  D'Esp.  ad. 
cap.  i.  Epist.  ad.  Titum.  deg.  ii.  Hence  your  indulgences  :  hence 
your  auricular  confessions,  and  your  absolutions  for  money  !  I 
appeal  to  every  sound  Catholic  for  the  facts  ! 

Then,  touching  the  character  of  the  Pontiff,  who  wields  this 
infiillible  Rule,  I  have^quoted  out  of  Baronius,  in  my  last,  the 
character  of  many  of  them.  To  this,  you  say, — "  Your  tirade 
about  the  popes  is  out  of  place,  and  of  no  consequence,  <fec." 
Glorious  reply.  But  it  is  strictly  in  point ;  and  you  feel  it ;  and 
you  cannot  question  one  of  my  quotations  !  I  will  direct  the 
public  eye  to  the  pontiff  and  his  throne,  beaming  forth  holiness  ! 
Your  own  writer,  Guiciardini,  speaking  of  the  popes,  even  so 
late  as  those  of  the  sixteenth  century,  says, — ^<  He  was  esteemed  a 


124 

good  pope  in  those  days,  who  did  not  exceed  in  wickedness,  the 
worst  of  men  !" 

Alexander  VI.  was  a  reproach  to  human  nature,  and  died  by 
a  mistake;  taking  that  poisoned  chalice  which  he  had  prepared 
for  another  !  Julius  II.  was  so  notoriously  wicked  that  "he  was 
a  scandal  to  the  wfjole  church.  He  filled  Italy  with  rapine,  war, 
and  blood."  Pope  Leo  X.  was  not  even  a  believer  in  Christiani- 
ty, he  did  not  believe  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul  ;  he  was  an 
Epicurean  in  theory  and  in  practice.  Paul  III.  and  Julius  III. 
*' were  such  licentious  characters  that  no  modest  man  can  write 
or  read  their  lives  Vv-ithout  blushing."  The  popes  of  the  darker 
ages,  the  tenth  century,  for  instance,  and  up  towards  the  dawn' 
of  the  Reformation,  were  in  all  respects,  rivals  of  the  Roman 
pagan  Emperors  :  to  their  utmost  licentiousness,  and  lewdness, 
they  added  cruelty 'more  revolting  than  even  that  of  their's  I 
Witness  John  X.  John  XXII.  and^XXIII.  and  Innocent  VIII. 
who  made  the  vallies  of  Piedmont  liow  like  streams,  with  the 
blood  of  thousands  of  innocents. 

If  there  was  the  operation  of  an  "  infallible  rule"  in  the  Ro- 
mish Church,  there  would  at  least  be  some  traces  of  an  exact 
and  conspicuous  harmony.  But  the  very  "living  Rule  and 
Judge"  has  caused  the  reverse  of  all  this.  The  example  of 
iEneas  Sylvius  was  honest  and  instructive.  Before  he  became 
Pope  Pius  11.  he  had  zealously  defended  the  Council  of  Basil 
against  the  Roman  court.  When  challenged  for  advocating  op- 
posite sentiments  when  made  a  pope,  he  replied  that  "  as  Sylvi- 
us, he  was  a  damnable  heretic,  but  as  Pope  Pius  II.  he  was  an 
orthodox  pontiff."  And  it  is  a  notorious  fact,  that  in  the  strug- 
gles of  Rome  to  gain  unlimited  power,  your  '*  infallible  judge" 
originated  almost  all  the  wars  of  Europe  ;  and  all  the  divisions 
of  the  Church  before  the  bishops  yielded  up  their  rights;  and  all 
the  divisions  in  the  nation,  before  the  temporal  princes  were 
brought  to  place  their  necks  under  the  haughty  priest's  heel. 
In  proof,  I  refer  the  curious  reader  to  Hallam's  Hist,  of  the 
middle  ages,  vol.  I.  chap.  7.  And  Slillingfleet  on  the  divisions 
of  the  Rom.  Church,  ch.  5, 

And  touching  disputes  about  doctrines,  let  the  priests  name 
one  disputed  point  settled  finally  by  this  infallible  Judge.  Has 
the  question  about  the  Virgin  Mary's  '^  immaculate  conception," 
been  settled?  No.  Have  the  disputes  been  settled  relative  to 
the  kind  of  worship  due  to  the  natural  blood  of  Christ,  which 
raged  between  the  Franciscans  and  the  Dominicans,  in  the  four- 
teenth century  ;  and  again,  a  century  after  this,  under  Pius  II.  9 
Did  this  infallible  Judge  settle  it?-  No,  his  interference  rather 
made  it  worse.     Has  infallibility  been  yet  able   to  compose  the 


theological  wars  between  the  Calvinistic  Jansenists,  and  the  Ar- 
minian  Jesuits  '?  Every  infaUibie  interposition  made  the  flames 
blaze  still  more  fiercely.  Who  taught  servants  to  rebel  against 
their  lawiul  prince  and  seize  the  throne  '?  This  infallible  Judge 
in  the  person  of  pope  Zachary  and  Gregory  Vlf.  wiio  put  his 
heel  on  the  Emperor's  neck.  Tiie  infallible,  who  kindled  the 
terrible  wars  in  Germany,  and  over  all  Europe.  The  ghostly 
arrogance  of  the  infulliUlc  Judge,  climbing  to  civil  power,  and 
setting  nation  against  nation  to  weaken  their  power.  Who  set 
whole  nations  against  their  lawful  rulers']  "The  infallible 
pope,"  who  suspended  civil  laws,  and  stopped  commerce  and 
spread  civil  rebellion  over  the  land.  Who  massacred  the  Hugne- 
nots,  and  Waldenses,  and  Lollards  ?  The  hired  assassins  of  the 
'*  infallible  Judge,"  of  Flome  ;  who  celebrated  the  Parisian  massa- 
cree  by  a  solemn  Te  deum'?  Who  has  changed  the  doctrines 
and  the  decrees,  and  the  institutions  of  heaven  9  The  infallible 
Judge, — who  has  corrupted  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible  ;  added  five 
sacraments  unknown  to  the  early  church,  and  contrary  to  Christ's 
solemn  commands  :  who  has,  also,  instituted  the  various  orders 
of  lazy  and  vicious  monks,  friars,  and  nuns,  to  devour  the  sur- 
plus product  of  the  people's  industry.  Who,  according  to  Bel- 
larmine,  can  change  virtue  into  vice,  and  vice  into  virtue'^  He  who 
exercises  "  the  infallible  Rule"  of  Rome  ;  the  Pope  who  claims  to 
give  indulgences  ;  who  demands  confession  of  sin  to  be  made 
to  him  and  his  priests  ;  who  absolves  all  sins  at  a  regular  tariff, 
— who  delivers  from  purgatory  ;  and  sends  the  most  vicious  and 
ungodly  men  to  heaven,  for  money,  according  to  the  chancery 
book  mentioned  by  Espence9  Who  founded  the  hellish  Inquisi- 
tion, and  turned  loose  on  the  human  race  such  as  monster  as  the 
Inquisitor  Torquemada'?  "The  infallible  Judge,"  the  pope, 
whose  servants  have  repeatedly  amused  the  Royal  Courts  of 
Spain  with  the  Moloch  sacrifices  of  human  beings  at  an  Auto 
de  Fe! 

These  are  the  legitimate  fruits  of  the  exercise  of  your  Rule 
Let  the  world  judge  of  the  tree  by  the  horrid  and  deadly  fruits. 
And  I  challenge  you  to  disprove  if  you  can,  one  of  my  historical 
facts  ;  or  one  of  my  quotations.  If  you  shall,  I  will  retract  and 
make  the  amend  honorable  before  the  public. 

VIII.  We  have  the  consent  of  the  greatest  and  best  of  the 
Fathers  against  your  Rule,  and  most  decisively  in  favor  of  our 
Rule. 

These  valuable  quotations  I  reserve  for  my  next,  and  wait  to 
see  whether  you  will  venture  to  deny  this.  They  come  in  appro- 
priately when  I  sum  up  in  favor  of  our  Rule. 

IX.  Your  Rule  is  the  instrument  by  which  you  have  establish- 


126 

ed  claims  that  go  to  annihilate  all  liberty,  civil  and  religious, 
from  the  face  of  the  earth.  You  deny  God's  word  to  the  peo- 
ple, unless  they  have  a  written  permission  from  a  priest,  conde- 
scending to  allow  him  to  hear  his  Maker  speaking  unto  him ! 
But  with  even  this  permission,  you  deny  him  the  rights  of  private 
judgment,  or  even  to  think  with  that  soul  which  the  Almighty 
has  given  him.  He  must  think,  and  reason,  and  believe,  just  as 
the  priest  dictates.  The  prelate  exerts  the  same  tyranny  over 
the  priest,  and  the  pope  over  the  prelate.  And  in  those  king- 
doms were  popery  is  the  established  religion,  priestcraft  eats  out 
the  very  essence  and  existence  of  civil  liberty  I  point  to  Spain, 
to  Rome  ;  Naples  ;  Austria  ;  and  say,  behold,  fellow-citizens,  the 
living  proof.  All  the  doctrines  of  supremacy,  and  toleration, 
and  union  of  church  and  state,  are  genuine  popery,  begotten 
and  nursed,  and  matured  by  the  pope.  And  what  is  the  st.Ue  of 
our  Republic  ?  I  see  the  holy  and  lovely  Genius  of  Liberty 
walking  forth  over  our  happy  plains,  in  her  fair  robes  and  glory, 
and  calling  her  happy  votaries  to  every  national  blessing  and  hap- 
piness. And  near  her  pathway  we  see  a  fierce  lion  in  his  den ;  his 
face  peering  from  his  dark  and  disguised  cavern  ;  but  his  claws  are. 
pared,  and  his  teeth  broken  :  he  is  flapping  his  lusty  sides  with 
his  tail  ;  waiting  with  impatience  for  his  claws  to  grow,  and  his 
teeth  to  be  whetted,  his  eyes  the  while,  gleaming  dark  and  un- 
subduable  wrath.  His  blood-shot  eyes  are  ever  on  the  fair 
Genius  of  Liberty,  and  he  is  meditating  a  ferocious  assault  upon 
her,  the  moment  he  prowls  forth,  when  the  sun  shall  be  setting 
over  the  land  ! 

I  refer  my  readers  to  appendix  i.  in  the  new  edition  of  the 
Glasgow  Protestant,  vol.  ii.  p.  633. — "  On  Popery  and  Jesuitism 
incompatible  with  civil  and  religious  Liberty."  This  is  an  arti- 
cle rich  enough  to  feast  the  soul  of  even  an  expelled  Jesuit! 

X.  And  last:  neither  prelate  nor  priest  can  give  their  flocks 
any  decisive  evidence  that  you  are  lawful,  and  ordained  pastors. 

Were  it  even  possible  that  you  had  apostolical  succession,  you 
carvnot  prove  a  legal  ordination.  For,  first,  no  priest  has  the 
true  and  essentially  necessary  Call  of  the  Christian  people.  A 
man  takes  it  into  his  head  to  go  to  a  Catholic  seminary  ;  after  his 
term  is  out,  without  the  least  evidence  of  spiritual  conversion 
by  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  presents  himself  to  the 
bishop,  and  is  ordained  and  then  he  is  stationed  in  a  chapel  ;  say 
St.  Patrick's,  or  St.  Peter's.  The  Gospel  Call  of  a  Christian 
people  is  never  asked.  And  I  do  question  gravely,  if  you,  gen- 
tlemen priests,  do  really  understand  what  a  Gospel  Call  is  ! 
Pardon  me  ;  it  may  be  owing  to  my  republican  ideas  of  liberty,, 
both  spiritual    and  temporal.     Second  :    the    ofiTice  of  priest  as 


U7 

you  take  it,  (not  as  my  Episcopalian  brethren  take  it  ;)  is  un- 
known to  the  Christianity  of  the  New  Testament.  It  is  an  out- 
rageous imposition  on  Scripture  and  reason.  I  challenge  any 
man  to  produce  me  one  passage,  justly  and  correctly  translated', 
in  all  the  New  Testament,  wherein  the  office  or  even  name  of 
priest  is  ever  applied  to  a  successor  of  the  apostolical  teachers. 
The  Greek  was  used  by  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  New  Testament : 
now  there  is  not  in  all  the  Greek  thereof,  or  in  any  truly  and 
correctly  translated  passage,  one  instance  of  the  true  ministry 
of  Christ  being  called  priests  in  the  visible  church.  By  assum- 
ing the  name  and  office  of  priest,  the  Catholics  overthrow  the 
priesthood  of  Christ,  and  his  one,  final,  and  only  offijring,  of  a 
sacrifice.  "  By  his  one  offering  he  has,  forever,  perfected  them 
that  are  sanctified."  But  the  Catholics  call  their  officiating 
men  priests,  simply,  and  only,  for  this  reason,  that  they  offer  up 
the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  a  sacrifice,  in  the  room  of  Christ's  one, 
only,  and  never  to  be  repeated  sacrifice  !  By  this  very  name 
of  priest  assumed  by  them,  do  they  deliberately  and  designedly 
overthrow  our  Lord's  blessed  and  perfect  atonement ! 

As  surely  then,  as  this  sacrifice  was  perfect,  and  needed  never 
to  be  repeated,  so  surely  are  there  on  such  things  as  priests  to 
offer  sacrifice  by  the  will  of  God ! 

Thirdly,  and  last :  not  a  priest  in  existence  can  prove  his  ordi- 
nation ;  because  not  one  of  them  can  prove  the  existence  of  the 
bishop's  intention,  in  that  rite.  In  this  "Sacramental  rite," 
your  own  Council  of  Trent,  Sess.  7.  declared  that  he  who  denies 
that  the  intention  of  the  officiating  minister  is  not  necessary  to 
the  efficacy  of  the  Sacrament,  is  to  be  anathema.  Now, 
unless  the '*  holy  bishop,"  who  ordained  you,  gentlemen,  had 
the  intention  in  his  soul,  conscience,  and  heart,  really  and  truly 
to  ordain  you  ;  or  if  his  mind  happened  to  waver  ;  or  to  wander 
after  some  object — in  fact,  if  the  talisman  and  magic  charm  of 
intention  was,  in  any  measure,  wanting,  then  you  are  not  ordain- 
ed. And  what  is  more,  if  you  venture  to  set  up  pretensions  to 
ordination  without  the  perfect  evidence  that  the  bishop  had  the 
said  intention,  you  are  not  only  ordained,  but  you  are  absolutely 
and  bona  fide,  under  the  holy  ban  of  the  Council  of  Trent ;  and 
exposed  to  damnation  !  ! 

Now  I  defy  any  of  you,  gentlemen,  and  all  of  your  priests, 
with  all  the  aid  of  your  infallibility,  to  prove  in  any  degree,  this 
intention.  None  but  God  can  tell  you  ;  not  even  the  bishop 
himself  can  doit;  he  has  forgotten,  long  ago,  all  about  it.  But 
without  this  evidence,  which  you  never  can  arrive  at,  not  a  soul 
of  you  can  prove  your  ordination. 


1S8 

Hence^  from  each,  and  all  of  these  reasons  taken  separately 
and  singly,  we  arrive  at  the  nnost  certain  conclusion,  that  you 
have  neither  "  the  infallible  Rule,"  nor  pope,  nor  prelate,  nor 
priests,  nor  church,  before  God  or  man  !     Q,.  E.  D. 

In  my  next,  if  God  spares  me,  and  you,  I  shall  sum  up  on  our 
Protestant  Rule,  and  review  your  objections,  hitherto  postponed. 

In  your  last  letter,  after  emerging  from  the  fog  of  personal 
abuse,  you  have  made  the  most  painful  assault,  yet  ventured  by 
you,  on  the  Blessed  Scriptures.  The  public,  before,  had  pro- 
nounced you  deists.  I  do  profess  now,  that  no  man  can  deny 
the  justness  of  the  charge, — even  the  most  liberal  cannot  re- 
fuse the  melancholy  evidence.  But  of  this  again. 
I  am,  gentlemen,  your  well  wisher.  &c. 

W.  C.   BROWNLEE, 

Collegiate  Minister  of  the  North  and  Middle  Dutch  Churches. 
New  York,  J9pril  2,  1833. 


Reply  of  Sfrst  Power  and  JLevint^ 

TO  l)U.  BROWNLEE. 

No.  5. 

•■  Behold,  I  atn  against  theui  that  prophecy  false  dreams,  saith  the  Lord,  and  do  t«U 
them,  and  cause  luy  people  to  err  by  their  lies,  and  by  their  lightness."     Jerem.  23.  32. 

Rev.  Sir, — Though  ingratitude  be  said  to  be  a  leading  disposi- 
tion of  the  human  heart,  yet,  tliere  are  redeeming  and  honorable 
exceptions  to  prove  it  does  not  at  all  times  prevail.  The  bene- 
factor to  his  race  is  often  singled  out  by  the  approving  voice  of 
his  fellow  men  ;  and  though  tiie  reward  conferred  may  not  always 
shield  him  from  the  ills  and  wants  incident  to  life,  still,  if  he 
should  suffer,  there  will  be  sympathy  for  his  distress.  This  ap- 
proving voice  and  this  sympathy  are  among  the  highest  incen- 
tives to  noble  undertaking; — next  to  the  consciousness  of  worth 
innate  in  the  mind  when  virtuous  performance  is  to  be  done, 
they  best  sustain  resolution  in  the  struggle  witli  difficulty. 

Whether  you  are  to  experience  from  the  enlightened  memberi 
of  your  flock  any  share  of  that  ingratitude  ascribed  to  the  human 
heart,  generally  ;  or  whether  their  approving  voice  and  sympathy 
will  cheer  or  console  you  in  your  distress,  it  is  not  for  us  to 
divine,  but  this  we  may  venture  to  assert,  that  you  possess  claims 
which  should  attract  their  attention.  Those  claims  they  may 
not  have  considered, — or,  ifconsidered,  the  halo  of  radiance  which 
surrounds  your  fame  as  their  '  GenZ/eman,'  '  ^fVi/cr,' and  Prea- 
cher, may  have  interfered  to  produce  that  deflection  of  the  visual 
ray,  which  you,  classically  termed  squinting.  Allow  us,  then, 
to  present  the  prismatic  colors  of  this  halo  to  their  plain  and 
healthy  vision. 

The  first  claim  you  have  on  their  sympathy,  though,  perhaps, 
not  on  their  approval,  must  be  founded  on  your  'Challenge.* 
It  was  chivalrous  ; — your  "  christian  public"  honor  it  with  another 
name — presumptuous.  The  manner  in  which  you  have  met  the 
terms  of  our  acceptance  of  it  can  lead  to  no  other  inference. 
Your  courtesy,  logic,  and  arguments  are  damning  proofs  of  this 
presumption.  Conscious  of  unfavorable  impressions  caused  by 
the  manner  of  your  probation  and  defence  of  your  "  Protestant 
Rule  of  Faith,"  you  seek  to  shift  or  lessen  the  disgrace  already 
incurred.  You  write  thus  in  your  last  gentle  letter  ;  —**  Engaged 
as  I  am  in  a  great  and  holy  cause — the  defence  of  Truth,  in 
consequence  of  the  renewed  challenges  of  the  Romish  Priests 
and  their  partisans  "  Here  you  seek  to  throw  the  cause  of  your 
challengo  on  us;  and,  hence,  solicit  comj>asiion  for  your  present 
No.  9.— 17. 


180 

slowly  state.  You  have  already  been  informed  that  you  were 
not  challenged  by  us,  not  by  our  Bishop,  not  by  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Varela,  either  directly  or  indirectly.  The  trick  implied  in  your 
term — pnrtisanship,  we  scorn, — such  artifice  we  contemn.  Dis- 
tinction from  controversial  contest  we  did  not  ambition.  To 
disturb  the  religious  harmony  of  society  was  never  our  object. 
Did  we  descend  to  the  low  g;asconade  of  challenge,  we  tell  you, 
in  words  that  cannot  be  misinterpreted,  you  would  not  have  been 
the  ^^  gentleman"  sQlecied, — higher  quarry  would  have  been 
sought.  This,  it  is  hoped,  will  calm  your  interior  spirit,  and 
lull  it  to  gentleness.  Whatever  chagrin  and  bitterness  of  heart 
you  now  reap,  be  it  remembered  you  were  the  herald  of  your 
own  woe  :  your  "  Challenge"  was  addressed  to  four,  either 
**  singly  or  in  a  boc/y.'^  These  are  your  own  words.  This,  then, 
is  your  first  claim  on  the  sympathy  or  approval  of  the  Members 
of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church  ! 

Your  next  claim  rests  on  your  claims  to  be  a  **  Gentlemen,  and 
Writer  for  the  Middle  Dutch  Church  ;"  and  this  claim  is  sup- 
ported by  language  not  usual  with  those  who  whisper  with  the 
interior  spirit  and  interpret  the  "  Hebrew  and  Greek  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."  Excuse  us  while  we  select  a  few  of  your  gentle' 
manly  and  charitable  phrases — "The  Catholic  Church  brings 
every  thing  into  market  for  money,  even  souls  and  bodies  of 
men,  and  each  sin,  which  has  its  own  price  in  the  Pope's  exche- 
quer-book !"  You  say  the  Catholic  Clergy  are  *'  a  polluted  and 
immoral  Priesthood,"  that  the  celibacy  of  the  priests  is  a 
^^pleasant  joke."  The  same  foul  and  gross  slaver  is  sputtered 
through  your  last  letter.  This  is  your  second  claim  on  the  sympa- 
thy, it  is  hoped,  not  on  the  approval,  of  your  flock. 

Your  third  claim  on  the  sympathy  and  approval  of  the  Mem- 
bersof  the  Middle  Dutch  Church,  ascends  loahighorder  of  worth, 
— it  segregates  you  as  one  of  the  elect,  one  of  the  Calvanistic 
predestined.  By  it  you  merit  the  compliment  of  the  old  classic 
Poet — "  serum  in  cocluai  rctleas  ;" — and  when  that  hour  is  near 
when  you  are  to  pass  that  "  bourne  from  which  no  traveller  re- 
turns," receive  our  *  fare  thee  well'  in  the  words  of  the  Lyric 
Moore,  to  the  patriot  Minstrel, — "go  where  glory  waits  thee." 
— This  third  clairh  rests  on  your  letter  in  the  "  Christian  Intelli- 
gencer" of  Saturday  March  23d,  in  which  you  and  your  "  virtu- 
ovs  ladies"  recommend  the  printing  of  the  obscene  tale  and 
slander,  "  Lore/^e."  Is  not  this  a  claim  of  the  most  elevated 
purity  of  heart  and  dignity  of  mind?  Does  it  not  merit  the 
sympathy  of  the  Members  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church  9  It 
certainly  cannot  captivate  their  approval, — no,  nor  the  approval 
of  any  father  of  a  family  or  any  virtuous   woman  to  whom  the 


131 

name  of  religion  is  dear.  Will  not  your  flock  sorrow  over  the 
indiscretion — to  use  a  mild  term — of  their  Preacher,  their 
"  Writer,"  their  "  Gentleman?^*  Ho,  who  from  his  very  station 
should  be  the  very  guardian  of  every  thing  pure,  the  sentinel 
over  every  tiling  chaste,  the  seraph  keeping  watch  over  every 
tiling  unearlhly  in  love;  he,  who,  from  his  rostrum  in  the 
Middle  Dutch  Church  should  be  the  first  in  scathing  and  de- 
nouncing whatever  crawls  into  the  paths  of  society  to  pollute 
the  mind  and  corrupt  the  heart, — he,  who  should  raise  a  hurri- 
cane of  fire,  pitch,  and  brimstone  to  annihilate  the  obscene  de- 
famer  and  the  ribald  slanderer,  is  among  the  foremost  who  ambi- 
tion a  "  bad  eminence,  by  recommending  a  gross  and  immoral 
fiction  ! !  !  Truly,  Rev.  Preacher,  *'  Writer,"  and  *'  Gentleman,^* 
your  third  claim  on  the  sympathy  of  your  flock  is  founded  on 
great  merit  and  worth.  But  ere  this  topic  is  cloe-cd,  receive  ihe 
judgment  of  a  gentleman,  scholar,  and  the  virtuous  father  of  a 
family,  the  Editor  of  the  "  Nqw  York  American,"  on  the  foul  tale 
which  you  and  your  "  w/woms,"  ladies  have  sanctioned.  Let 
your  flock  and  "  christian  public"  contrast  it  with  your  letter  of 
recommendation, — with  your  ^'-pleasant  joke*^  on  the  celibacy 
of  the  Priests ; — and,  this  done,  let  them  meditate  on  the  moni- 
tion of  St.  Paul,  who  says,  there  are  matters  which  should  "  not 
even  be  mentioned,  as  becometh  saints  Ephes.  5.  3. 

**This"  writes  the  Editor  of  the  New  Yo-k  American,  "is  a 
most  reprehensible  publication,  and  quite  unfit  to  be  introduced 
into  any  family.  It  is  intended  as  is  professed,  to  unveil  the  de- 
pravity of  Catholic  Convents,  and  Confessors  in  Canada  ;  and 
in  order  to  do  so,  a  tale  of  gross  incredible  and  revolting  depra- 
vity is  invented,  which  becomes  the  more  shocking  from  the 
mingling  up  with  it  of  religious  dissertations. — We  are  ashamed 
that  the  New  York  press  should  have  ushered  such  a  publication 
to  the  light." 

Having  stated  your  claims  to  the  sympathy  and  approval  of 
the  Members  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church,  we  now  enter  on 
the  claims  of  your  last  letter  to  logical  and  theological  preci- 
sion; At  length,  after  dragging  a  thousand  irrelevant  topics 
through  the  tedious  length  of  four  crude  and  mishapen  letters, 
there  is  a  twilight  gleam  of  hope  that  you  will  enter  on  the  real 
point  at  issue, — your  Rule  of  Faith, — that  your  squinting  and 
skirmishing  will  soon  terminate.  You  state  our  first  question 
and  thus  answer  it. 

How  do  you  know  the  Bible  to  be  the  word  of  God  7 

Ans. — 1st.  From  their  external  evidence  of  prophecy,  and  of 
miracles ;  and  the  gift  of  tongues  :  from  internal  evidence, 
namely  their  majesty,  their  purity  ;  their  sublimity^  their  efficacy 


182 

in  convincing,  converting,  and  comforting  their  perfect  harmony 
in  all  their  parts :  finally,  from  their  uncorrupted  preservation  :  and 
from  the  historical  evidence  of  their  tradition,  from  the  Hebrews 
and  Jews  ;  from  the  Greek  Church  ;  from  the  African  Church  ; 
from  the  Church  of  the  Albigenses  and  Waldenses  :  and  from 
the  Roman  Church.  All  these  unitedly  handed  down  the  Holy 
Scriptures  to  us. 

Do  you  seriously,  Rev.  Sir,  intend  this  answer  as  a  proof  that 
the  Bible  is  the  word  of  God?  Here  there  is  nothing  but  a 
series  of  assertions,  Assertions  are  not  proofs.  Where  is  the 
form  of  argument, — where  the  "  form  of  sound  words  '7"  Where 
is  the  logical  concatenation, — where  the  convincing  and  logical 
conclusion  9  Is  it  thus  you  demonstrate  this  question  of  *'  infi- 
nite iynportanceV  If  this  be  proof,  then,  the  merest  child  in 
any  infantile  school  in  this  city  may  repeat  your  answer  to  our 
question,  and  conclude  in  as  rigid  a  sense  as  you,  ergo  the  Bible 
is  the  word  of  God  1  But,  though  the  child  may  repeat  the 
words  of  your  answer,  are  we,  therefore,  to  admit  the  child  has 
logically  proved  the  Bible  to  be  the  word  of  God  '')  Surely  not. 
Will  you  seek  refuge  under  your  usual  artifice  and  evasion — the 
ludicrous  charge  of  impiety  and  Deism,  because  we  will  not  ad- 
mit this  answer  to  be  argument  ^  We  will  suppose  a  case  to 
illustrate  your  mode  of  logical  procedure.  A  boy  says  he 
knows  the  first  six  books  of  Euclid.  You  wish  to  test  his  knowl- 
edge, and  you  select  the  following  proposition  from  the  sixth 
book.  "The  perpendiculars  drawn  from  the  three  angles  of 
any  triangle  to  the  opposite  sides  intersect  one  another  in  the 
same  point."  The  boy  under  your  examination  says,  the  lead- 
ing steps  in  the  demonstration  of  this  proposition  depend  on  the 
31st  proposition  of  the  3d  book,  the  loth  of  the  1st,  the  4th  of 
the  6th,  the  iCth  of  the  5th,  the  0th  of  the  6th,  the  21st  of  the 
3d,  and  the  32d  of  the  1st.  Does  a  reference  to  this  register  of 
propositions  prove  the  boy  can  demonstrate  the  proposition  in 
question  ?  No  ; — a  mere  reference  to  any  number  of  proposi- 
tions is  not  proof,  for  if  it  were  proof,  then  an  enumeration  of 
any  other  propositions  would,  equally,  be  proof.  I'he  regular 
form  of  demonstration  is,  therefore,  necessary  to  ascertain  the 
boy's  knowledge, — or,  in  other  words,  it  is  necessary  to  establish 
the  proposition  in  question. 

Now,  most  logical  preacher  and  demonstrator  of  your  ''Pro- 
testant Rule  of  Faith,"  apply  the  force  of  this  illustration  to 
your  answer  to  our  question, — "  how  do  you  know  the  Bible  to 
be  the  word  of  God  V  Like  the  boy,  you  enumerate  a  series  of 
propositions,  and  imagine  it  lacks  only  the  appendage  of  a  Q.  E. 
D.  to  make  itfi  logical  bastion  impregnable  to  every  attack  from 


183 

your  opponent'!  science  of  strategy.  But,  believe  U3,  you  are 
within  the  distance  of  our  point-blank  range.  The  glacis  of 
your  bastion  is  passed  ;  and  like  old  Chasse  at  Antwerp,  com- 
plaining of  Marshal  Gerard,  his  bombs,  and  genades,  you  will 
soon  report  to  the  Members  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church  and 
your  "  chislian  public,"  that  in  vain  will  the  annals  of  history 
be  searched  to  discover  the  example  of  a  bombardment  equal 
in  brutality  to  that  wiiich  the  enemy  is  directing  against  the 
citadel.  Never  among  a  civilized  people  did  any  thing  similar 
occur. 

Vou  could  not  admit  that  reference  to  any  series  of  proposi- 
tions would  be  the  proper  form  of  logical  proof  to  establish  a 
proposition  in  the  sixth  book  of  Euclid, — we  will  not  concede 
that  reference  to  any  number  of  propositions  in  your  answer  to 
our  first  question  is  a  proof  that  the  Bible  is  the  word  of  God. 
That  you  may  know  the  work  you  have  to  execute,  we  register 
the  propositions  contained  in  your  answer. 

Question.  How  do  you  know  the  Bible  to  be  the  word  of 
God  9 

Answer  1st.  "I  know  it  from  its  external  evidence  of  pro- 
phecy."— Prove  it. 

2d.  '•  1  know  it  from  its  external  evidence  of  miracles." — 
Prove  it. 

3d.  "  I  know  it  from  its  external  evidence  of  the  gift  of 
tongues." — Prove  it. 

4th.  "I  know  it  from  its  internal  evidence,  namely,  its  ma- 
jesty."— Prove  it. 

6th.  '*  I  know  it  from  its  internal  evidence,  its  purity." — 
Prove  it. 

Gth.  "  I  know  it  from  its  internal  evidence,  its  sublimity. — 
Prove  it. 

7th.  •'  I  know  it  from  its  internal  evidence,  its  efficacy  in  con- 
vincing."— Prove  it. 

8th.  "  I  know  it  from  its  internal  evidence,  its  efficncy  in  con- 
vert ing." — Prove  it. 

9th.  *'  I  know  it  from  its  internal  evidence,  its  efficacy  in  com- 
forting."— Prove  it. 

10th.  "I  know  it  from  its  internal  evidence,  its  perfect  har- 
mony in  all  its  parts." — Prove  it. 

11th.  "I  know  it  from  its  internal  evidence,  its  uncorrupted 
preservation." — Prove  it. 

12th.  *'  I  know  it  from  the  historical  evidence  of  its  own  tra- 
dition."— Prove  it. 

13lh  ••  I  know  it  from  the  Hebrews  and  Jews." — Prove  it. 


134 

14th.  "I  know  it  from  the  African  Church." — Prove  it. 

15th.  *'  I  know  it  from  the  Church  of  the  Albigenses  and  Wal- 
tlenses." — Prove  it. 

16th.   "  And  1  know  it  from  the  Roman  Church.^^ — Prove  it. 

To  embody  16  propositions  in  your  answer  to  our  first  ques- 
tion is  some  evidence  of  extensiveness  in  your  powers  of  mental 
conception,  though  eight  tedious  weeks  have  been  worn  in  its  con- 
coction. Now  if  in  your  boy  days  you  formed  an  intimacy  with 
Old  Cocker,  favour  us  with  ano/Aer  answer  to  this  "rule  of  three" 
query;  If  the  length  of  two  moons  be  required  to  concoct  six- 
teen propositions  without  proof,  how  many  lunations  will  be  ne- 
cessary to  prove  them?  It  is  looped  your  answer  will  be  worthy 
of  a  place  in  the  foreign  annals  of  the  French  Institute.  By 
the  time  you  shall  have  demonstrated  your  sixteen  propositions, 
the  difference  between  a  Catholic  Q,.  E.  D.  and  what  you  desig- 
»ate  "  Protestant  lesson  and  logic,^^  will  be  visible  to  the  mem- 
bers of  Middle  Dutch  Church,  your  sacerdotal  brelheren,  and 
the  "Christian  pubHc,"  to  whom  you  appeal  as  your  "judge 
and  jury."  Enter  at  once  on  the  subject,  else  the  dog  days  may 
over  take  you  in  your  logical  labors,  and,  then  there  might  be 
danger  of  rnbbidness.  But  this  visitation  may  heaven  forfend. 
Give  some  heed  to  the  advice  of  Shakspeare's  Sir  Nathaniel  to 
the  Schoolmaster,  Holoferness, — *'  let  the  epithets  be  sweetly 
varied,  like  a  scholar  at  the  least."  If  not,  we  shall  be  forced  to 
compliment  you  in  the  words  of  the  aforesaid  Schoolmaster, — 
*'  God  comfort  thy  capacity." 

Waiting  the  demonstrations  of  the  sixteen  propositions,  con- 
tained in  your  answer  to  our  first  query,  we  pass  on  to  your  an- 
swers to  our  other  questions — liovv  do  you  know  which  books 
were  written  by  divine  inspiration*? 

Your  only  rule  of  faith  and  judge  of  controversy,  the  written 
word  of  God,  speaking  to  us  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testa- 
n>ent  and  the  New,  is  utterly  abandoned  by  you.  When 
asked  to  prove  the  Bible  to  be  the  word  of  God,  you  say  you 
prove  it  from  the  external  evidence  of  prophecy,  and  of  mira- 
cies  :  and  the  gift  of  tongues:  and  that  the  church  tells  you, 
SHE  has  this  evidence,  from  the  authors  of  the  books  of  the 
holy  Scriptures."  Here,  then,  Rev.  Sir,  is  your  unequivecal  ad- 
mission of  what  we  contend  for.  We  contend  that  without 
the  testimony  of  the  church,  the  Bible  could  never  be  proved  to 
bethe  word  of  God.  This  you  adynit.  Therefore,  Sir,  the  writ- 
ten word  of  God,  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  of 
the  NeWy  is  not  the  rule  of  faith  established  by  Christ.  It  is  an 
article  of  Christian  belief,  that  the  Bible  is  the  word  of  God. 
But  this  article  of  belief  could  not  be  known  from  the  Bible 


135 

alone,  how  then  can  it  be  said  Christ  established,  it  as  a  rule  of 
faith,  that,  which  could  never  bring  man  to  the  faith  of  the  Di- 
vinity of  the  Scriptures,  Strange,  Rev.  Sir,  that  so  able  a 
Divine  as  you,  never  detected  the  absurdity  of  your  protestant 
rule  of  faith  and  judge  of  controversy,  until  it  has  been  fully  de- 
monstrated to  you  by  your  Catholic  antagonist. 

'I'he  Divinity,  then,  of  the  Scriptures  rests  on  the  authority  of 
the  church.  This  admission  from  you,  argues  in  this  instance 
at  least,  no  "  derangement  in  the  moral  faculty  ;" — on  the 
contrary,  it  is  an  evidence  to  the  "  christian  public,"  that  you 
are  no  longer  deluded  by  your  ignis  fatuus,  but  that  you  now 
think  soberly  on  this  most  important  point. 

But,  in  the  meantime.  Rev.  Doctor,  what  has  become  of  your 
affected  veneration  for  the  written  word  of  God,  for  you  tell  us 
"  that  the  Bible  contains  the  whole  word  of  God,  that  there  is  no 
inspired  book  lost,  and  that  the  same  evidence  which  establishes 
the  fact  of  their  divine  inspiration  establishes  this!"  Now,  Sir, 
as  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  is  established  by  the  evi- 
dence of  the  Christian  church,  and  this  you  admit — show  us, 
when  and  where  the  church  of  Christ  has  declared,  that  no  in- 
epired  book,  and  no  part  of  any  inspired  book  has  been  lost  I 
This  you  are  strictly  bound  to  do,  as  an  honorable  and  honest 
adversary.  If  you  will  but  consult  the  learned  work  of  Adamus 
Contzin,  on  the  four  Gospels,  and  also  the  great  work  of  Serr«- 
rius,  you  will  find  that  no  fewer,  than  twenty  several  books  of 
Scripture  have  wholly  perished.  "These  books,  says  Dr.  Brown- 
lee,  referred  to  by  deists  and  Romish  priests — such  as  Jasher  and 
and  certain  epistles  and  Gospels,  were  not  given  by  inspiration." 
The  trick  of  your  design  is  obvious.  How  far  it  can  serve  your 
cause,  the  public  will  judge.  Was  the  author  of  the  book  Num- 
bers, a  deist  or  a  Romish  priest?  Does  he  not  refer,  c.  xxi.  v. 
14,  '*To  the  book  of  the  wars  of  the  Lord?"  Where  is  this  book'? 
In  the  3d  book  of  Kings,  [which  you  call  the  first,  c.  iv.  v.  32,] 
we  are  told  "That  Solomon  spoke  three  thousand  proverbs,  and 
"  his  canticles  were  a  thousand  and  five."  Where  are  these? 

In  the  second  book  of  Chronicles,  c.  ix.  v.  29,  it  is  said,  *Now 
the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Solomon  first  and  last,  are  they  not  writ- 
ten in  the  book  of  Nathan  the  prophet,  and  in  the  prophecy  of 
Abijah  and  in  the  vision  of  Iddo.  "  AVhere  are  these  three  books9" 
The  first  book  of  Chronicles  ends  with  these  words,  "Now  the 
acts  of  David  the  King  first  and  last,  behold  be  they  not  written 
in  the  book  of  Samuel  the  Seer,  and  in  the  book  of  Nathan  the 
Prophet,  and  in  the  book  of  Gad  the  Seer."  Where  are  these 
books  9  In  the  last  to  the  Colossians,  St.  Paul  commands  them 
to  read  in  the  church,  the  epistle  from  Laodicea.     Where  is  it? 


136 

In  the  first  to  the  Corinthians,  c.  v.  v.  9.  St.  Pauls  say^,  "  I  wrote 
to  you  an  epistle."  Where  is  this  epistle*?  St.  Matthew,  whose 
Hebrew  Gospel  does  not  exist,  xxvii.  c.  v.  9.  quotes  words  spo- 
ken by  the  prophet  Jeremy,  which  are  not  now  found  in  the  wri- 
tings of  the  prophet.  St.  Matthew,  also,  c.  ii.  v.  23.  says,  "  it 
was  spoken  by  the  prophets,  "  Me  shall  be  called  Nazarine." 
Where  in  any  of  the  prophetic  books  now  existing  is  Christ  cal- 
led a  Nazarine  ?  The  books,  then  of  the  prophets,  here  alluded 
to  by  St.  Matthew,  must  have  perished.  This  was  the  belief, 
Rev.  Sir,  of  the  great  St.  John  Chrysoslom,  whom  we  are  better 
pleased  to  follow,  than  the  preacher  in  the  Middle  Dutch 
Church.  In  his  9th  Horn,  on  St.  Matthew,  he  snys  *•  many  of 
the  prophetical  monuments  have  perished  ;  for  the  Jews  being 
careless,  and  not  only  careless,  but  also  impious,  they  have  care- 
lessly lost  some  of  these  monuments,  others  they  have  partly 
burnt,  partly  torn  in  pieces.  St.  Justin,  writing  a^yainst  Tryphon 
shews  that  the  Jews  maliciously  destroyed  many  of  the  books  of 
the  Old  Testament.  Yet  against  the  testimony  of  the  Sciiptures, 
and  in  opposition  to  the  most  respectable  historical  evidence. 
Preacher  Jirownlee  asserts,  '*  there  is  no  inspired  book  lost  !" 
Truly,  Rev.  Preacher. 

"  duem  Deus  vult  perdere,  pnus  dementat ;" 

and  your  insane  flippancy  of  assertion,  if  not  gross  ignorance  of 
the  subject  on  which  you  write,  places  you  before  the  "christian 
public,"  in  the  ludicrous  attitude  of  a  frantic  fiinatic,  declaim- 
ing to  a  "  conclave"  of  virtuous  ladies,  on  the  all  sufficiency  of 
a  mutilated  rule  of  faiti,  while  you  leave  to  your  opponents  the 
rich  and  noble  eloquence  of  the  Chrysostoms,  the  Gregory's  the 
Basils,  the  Justins,  the  Cyprians,  &c. 

If  we  must  believe  that  the  Scriptures  alone  are  a  sufficient 
rule  of  faith,  we  now  call  on  you  to  give  us  all  the  Scriptures, 
and  not  a  part  of  them.  We  must  have  all,  that  we  may  know, 
what  is  written  in  all.  Where  is  it  ivrittcn  that  all  things  neces- 
sary to  be  believed,  are  written  !■]  '.iie  books  which  we  now 
have?     Produce  the  text  and  you  \\\\\  reduce  us  to  silence. 

Are  you  not  aware,  that,  in  asserting  "  the  Scriptures  alon.e 
are  a  sufficient  rule  of  faith." — Your  doctrine  is  truly  unscrip- 
tural  ?  How  can  you  make  the  assertion,  when  Saint  Paul  tella 
you,  that  there  are  unwritten  Traditions  taught  by  the  Apos- 
tles, to  wliich  he  attaches  the  same  weight  and  authority,  as 
to  his  own  epistle,  because  they  convey  to  the  pure  word  of  God, 
as  certainly  as  the  Scriptures  themselves."  Therefore  Brethren, 
stand  fast  and  hold  the  Traditions,  which  you  have  been  tanght, 
whether  BY  WORD  or  our  Epistle." — 2  Thess.  11.  v.  15.  But 
you  reject  Traditions  and  adhere  solely  to  the  written  word. 


tar 

Therefore  you  disoboy  St.  Paul,  and  you  teach  the  virtuous 
crones  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church,  who  passed  their  verdict 
on  the  ''Instrument,''  to  disolx^  St.  Paul.  If  the  scriptures 
alone  nre  a  suthcient  rule  of  faith,  let  us  know,  luliat  text  of 
Scripture,  you  have  to  detciininc,  precisely  the  number  of 
canonii  al  books.  You  must  believe  that  all  the  books  of  the 
Old  Testament,  together  with  all  the  part  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, as  printed  in  your  Bible,  are  canonical  Scriptures.  This 
is  necessary  to  be  believed.  But  if  you  can  produce  no  text, 
which  can,  precisely,  determine  the  number  of  canonical  books, 
then  it  evidently  follows,  that  there  is  something  to  be  believed, 
which  cannot  be  found  in  the  Scriptures  themselves,  and,  by 
consequence,  the  written  word  of  God  alone,  is  neither  a  full 
nor  sufficient  rule  of  faith.  If  you  could  have  produced  the  text, 
you  would  not  have  referred  us  to  passages  in  Holy  writ,  which 
can  never  prove,  nor  were  they  ever  intended  to  prove,  that  the 
Scriptures  alone,  are  a  sufficient  rule  of  faiih.  They  have  as 
much  reference  to  this,  as  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis.  You 
quote  Psalm  the  l9th  7.  Its  words  are, — "  The  law  of  the  Lord 
is  perfect,  converting  the  soul ;  the  testimony  of  the  Lord  is  sure, 
making  wise  the  simple."  Does  this  verse  tell  you,  that  all  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  and  all  the  parts  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, as  printed  in  your  Bible,  are  canonical  Scriptures? 
No.  Hence,  it  is  no  proof  that  the  Scriptures  alone,  are  a  suffi- 
cient rule  of  faith.  We  put  you  the  same  question,  with  regard 
to  Isaias  8— 19.  29.  John  20.  31.2  Tim.  3.  15.  2  Peter  1. 
19.  Gal.  1.  6.— 9.  Rev.  22.  18— 19.  These  are  your  references  ; 
and  we  defy  you  to  prove  from  them  either  singly  or  collective- 
ly,, that  all  the  parts  of  the  New,  as  printed  in  your  Bible,  are 
canonical  Scriptures.  If  they  cannot  prove  this,  they  cannot 
prove  that  the  Scriptures  alone,  are  a  sufficient  rule  of  faith. 
This,  Uev.  Sir,  is  the  logic  of  Euclid,  of  Aristotle  and  of  com- 
mon sense,  and  not  that  chaotic  jumble,  which  you  designate, 
by  the  abused  name  of  **  Protestant  lesson  and  logic." 

After  thus  prostrating  you  before  your  *'  christian  public,'*  wo 
turn  with  pride,  to  the  contemplation  of  that  Church,  which  you 
and  your  fellow  laborers  endeavor  to  vilify.  We  leave  the  wholo 
world,  to  infer  the  excellence  of  the  Catholic  Religion  from  the 
nature  of  its  tenets,  from  its  antiquity,  from  its  ditfusion,  from 
the  virtues  and  abilities  of  its  countless  number  of  professors, 
and,  lastly,  from  the  pood  effects  which  it  has  produced.  Is 
there  a  sublime  idea  of  the  Deity,  derived  from  reason  or  revela- 
tion ;  is  there  a  correct  notion  of  his  nature,  attributes  and  super- 
intending Providence,  of  the  dignity  and  excellence  of  the  human 
foul,  its  spirituality  and  immortality ;  of  our  relation  to  God  id 
18. 


1S3 

this  life,  and  in  thai  to  come  ;  of  a  state  of  future  rewards  and 
future  punishments  which  revelation  has  made  known,  that  is 
not  held  by  Catholics?  Is  there  a  duty  of  worship  to  God,  of 
justice  to  our  neigfibor  or  of  controul  over  ourselves,  which  it 
does  not  inculcate  ^  You  unblusiiingly  proclaim  us  idolaters, 
because  we  venerate  tltc  Saints  of  God,  and  pay  a  decent  re- 
spect to  images.  We  abhor  id(datry  as  much  as  you,  for  we  are 
christians,  worshippers  of  the  livin^jj  God  and  of  his  son  Jesus 
Christ.  If  to  "  lo\'Q  the  Lord  our  God  above  all  things  and  our 
neighbors  as  ourselves"  without  distinction  of  nation  or  creed 
be  the  perfection  of  the  law.  [flom,  13.  10.]  "If  to  visit  the 
fatherless  and  the  widow  in  tlieir  tribulation,  and  keep  ourselves 
unsfotted  in  this  world,  be  religion  clean  and  undefiled  before 
G)d."  [James  1.27.]  These  are  the  duties  which  our  Church 
enjoins,  whicli  she  orders  us  and  hor  other  pastors  to  preach  and 
to  teach.  Our  daily  admonition  to  our  respective  nf)cks  is, 
*'  whatsoever  things  are  true,  whatsoever  things  are  modest,  what- 
soever things  are  just,  whatsoever  things  are  holy,  whatsoever 
things  are  lovely,  whatsoever  things  are  of  good  re[)ort  ;" 
if  there  be  any  virtue,  if  there  be  any  discijdine,  think  on  these 
things,  these  do  ye.  [Phil.  4.  8."]  If  these  things  are  the 
abominations  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  verily,  we  fear  not  the 
abominable  im[)utalions,  and  we  hesitate  not  to  say  to  you  and 
your  virtuous  ladies  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church  "  Go  you  and 
do  in  like  manner.*'  If  the  church  of  Rome,  be  what  you  de- 
scribe her,  then  must  Luther,  the  greatest  Protestant  and  the 
first  Protestant  of  all  Protestants,  have  been  a  mad  man  or  a  liar, 
when  in  his  first  book  against  the  Anabaptists,  he  confesses. 
*•  That  there  is  very  much  good  to  be  found  in  the  Papacy,  nay 
every  good  christian  thing,  and  tiiat  from  thence  they  were  deriv- 
e<l  unto  us  ;  for  wo  musi  confers,  that  under  the  [lapacy,  there  is 
true  ami  Holy  Scripture,  true  balism,  the  true  sacrifice  of  the 
Altar,  the  true  keys  for  the  remission  of  sins,  the  true  office  of 
fireaching,  true  catechism,  the  Lord's  prayer,  the  ten  command- 
ments, the  articles  of  our  creed,  moreover  1  say  unto  you,  that 
in  the  papacy  there  is  Christianity,  and  what  is  more  the  very 
kernel  of  Christianity."  Now,  Kev.  Sir.  your  description  of 
Popery  is  quite  oppojiite  to  this.  Think  you,  will  the  *'  christian 
public"  believe  you  in  preference  lo  Luther  9  We  think  not. 
The  magnanimous  parent  of  the  reformation,  is  undoubtedly  a 
more  respectable  witness,  before  the  public,  than  the  preacher 
in  the  Middle  Dutch  Church. 

Your  blasphemous  as-sertion  "  The  Holy  Universal  Church  may 
not  at  fill  times  be  visible!  ! !"  shall  be  noticed  in  its  proper 
plaee.    Let  it  eulHce  at  pre3*;i:t  to  ask,  if  ih©  church  of  Christ 


may  not  "at  all  times  be  visible.**  Did  the  prophet  Isaias  speak 
the  truth,  when  iie  distinctly  said,  chap.  Ix.  14.  "  Therefore  the 
gates  shall  be  open  continuallij,  they  shall  not  be  shut  day  nor 
nielli,  that  m^in  m\y  bnu'^  luiio  thee  the  Ibices  of  the  Gentiles 
and  that  their  Kings  may  be  brou<;ht."  Here,  Rev.  Sir,  the 
prophet  tells  ns  that  tiie  Church  is  ahvays  visible,  and  the  reasf)n 
of  this  visibdity  he  also  assigns  *'  that  men  m  ly  •brin;^  unto  thee 
the  Inrces  of  the  (Jentiles."  Could  this  be  done  if  the  cluirrli 
were  invisible  7  Your  doctrine  on  this  point  is  truly  uiis  triptural. 
'J'he  learned  Protestant,  Melancton,  says,  ''  that  it  abolislies  all 
testimonies  of  anticjuity,  it  takes  away  all  judgmerUs,  it  causes 
endless  confusion,  and  creates  a  commonwealth  of  unruly  rvf- 
Jians  and  Atheists,  wherein  lliere  is  not  one  that  cnreth  for  ano- 
ther." Sec  Mel.  in  prof  1.  cor.  doc.  Christ,  in  Ecde.  Sax.  de 
impre,  l^ypsioc.     An.  1561. 

'J'he  c  lusc  muj^t  be  weak  indeed,  that  stands  in  need  of  abuse, 
polluting  slander  and  bitroted  cavil  for  its  su}>port.  See  the  pre- 
dicament in  which  you  foolish  drivel  iiboni  intention  places  you, 
no  priest  says  Dr.  Brownlec,  can  prove  his  ordination,  for  he  can- 
not prove  that  the  Bishop  who  ordained  him,  had  tlie  '*iMagic 
charm  of  intention."  I-Jeally,  most  worthy  preacher,  ''  writer,'* 
and  ''  gentlanafi,^^  we  must  greet  you  with  the  cons(iling  words 
of  the  pedagogue,  Holofernes,  "  God  comfort  tiiy  capacity.'* 
We  have  strained  hard  to  instruct  you  in  the  ways  of  logic  and 
wisdom,  but  in  vain.  Your  intellect  has  strange  biasses;  its 
propensity  to  ^^  squint ing,^^  is,  we  fear,  incurable.  How  fitly  it 
illustrates  *'  the  ILd>rew  and  Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost," — 
**  'J'hough  tiiou  shouldst  bray  a  fool  in  a  mortar  with  a  ])cstle, 
yet  will  not  his  fooIisiiiKss  depart  from  him."  J'rov.  xxvii.  22. 
Your  doctrine  of  intention  is  among  the  most  ludicrous  that 
could  emanate  from  a  rheumatic  brain.  It  would  uproot  all 
confidence  between  man  and  man,  dissolve  the  laws,  of  every 
system  of  compact,  and  taint  with  suspicion  every  pledge  of 
trust.  But  to  apply  your  pen  rile  argument  to  yourself.  In  the 
course  of  your  ministerial  duties,  you  are  asked  to  baptize  a 
child.  You  baptize  it.  According  to  2/«w^' /fl?^  of  intention  the 
parents  of  the  (diild  cannot  prove  your  intention  to  baptize, 
tli^ref  )re,the  child  is  not  baptiz  ;d  !  This  is  your  wondrous  logic. 
Will  the  Preaclier  who  cotdd  concoct  it,  ever  prove  his  rule  of 
faith?  No.  But,  gentle  Doctor,  are  you  a  christian^ — Were 
you  baptized?  Certainly  not  ;  for,  according  to  your  own  doc- 
trine, you  cannot  prove  the  intention  of  tfie  Parson  who  baptized 
you.  Ergo,  you  arc  no  christian.  Q,.  E.  D.  You  interpret 
the  "  Hebrew  and  Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost"  to  your  -^  virtuous^* 
cronies.     Can    they  have    faith    in   the    interpretation  9     Thej 


44-0 

cannot  prove  your  intention.  What  think  you  of  your  logic, 
dear  Doctor  9  You  are  now,  Rev.  Sir,  openly  and  effectually 
defeated,  on  your  rule  of  faiih.  Speak  and  write  what  you  can 
ngainsl  Popes,  priest,  Jesuit's  intention,  &c.  you  can  never  prove, 
that  the  written  word  of  God  in  the  Old  'I'estamcnt  and  the 
New,  is  the  rule  of  fiiith  which  Christ  estahlished.  The  think- 
ing public  already  admit,  that  you  have  strayed  from  your  sub- 
ject, in  your  malignant  attacks  on  the  Catholic  Church  and  on 
her  ministers ;  that  Calvinistic  preachers  pay  but  little  respect 
to  truth  and  decency,  when  they  vent  their  spleen  against  the 
Popes. 

It  gives  us  no  little  pleausure  to  place  you  in  strong  relief  be- 
fore an  enlightened  community.  We  are  convinced  you  will 
make  a  despicable  figure  by  the  sifle  of  the  elegant  and  enlight- 
ened Roscoe,  and  hence  we  give  his  character'  of  the  Popes,  and 
solemnly  call  on  the  christian  public  to  contrast  it  with  yours. 
**  The  qualifications,  says  Roscoe,  chap.  1.  Life  of  Leo  X.  page 
53,  by  which  the  Pope  is  supposed  to  have  merited  the  supreme 
authority,  are  such  as  would  be  mo:^t  likely,  to  direct  him  in  the 
in  the  best  mode  of  exercising  it  :  Humility,  Charity,  Temper- 
ance, Vigilance  and  Learning,  are  among  the  chief  of  these  re- 
quisites ;  and  although  snme  of  thcMU  have  confessedly  l)een  to 
often  dispensed  with  yei,  few  individuals  have  ascended  the  pon- 
tifical throne  without  posessing  more  than  a  common  share  of  in- 
tellectual endowments.  Hence  the  Lomnn  Pontiffs  have  frequent- 
ly displayed  examples  highly  worthy  of  imitation,  and  have  signa- 
lized themselves,  in  an  eminent  degree  as  Patrons  of  science,  of 
letters,  and  art.  Cultivating  as  Ecclesiastics  those  studies  which 
were  prohibited  or  discournged  among  the  laity,  they  may  in 
general  be  considered  as  superior  to  the  age  in  which  they  lived  ; 
and  among  the  predecessors  of  Leo  X.  the  philosopher  contem- 
plates with  approbation,  the  eloquence  and  courage  of  Leo  L 
who  preserved  the  city  of  Rome  from  the  ravages  of  the  barba- 
rian Attila ;  the  ben'fficence,  candor,  and  pastoral  attention  of 
of  Gregory  L  unjustly  charged  with  being  the  adversary  of  libe- 
ral studies ;  the  various  acquirements  of  Sylvester  IL  so  extraor- 
dinary in  the  eyes  of  his  contemporaries,  as  to  cause  him  to  be 
considered  as  a  sorcerer;  the  industry,  acuteness  and  learning 
of  Inocent  HI.  of  Gregory  IX.  of  Inocent  IV.  and  of  Pius  II. 
and  the  munificence  and  love  of  literature,  so  strikingly  displayed 
in  the  character  of  Nicholas  V."  in  conclusion,  Rev.  Sir,  we 
must  inform  you  that  the  bark  of  Peter,  which  has  careerd  through 
the  storms  of  eighteen  centuries,  has  nothing  to  fear  from  the  spile, 
drivel,  and  malice  of  the  preacher  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church  ; 
&9r  will  the  awkard  weapons  he  has  made  choice  of,  injure  the 


practised  crew  that  mnn  the  goodly  vessel.  It  is  hoped  you  will 
attempt  the  demonstration  of  your  sixteen  propositions  in  your 
next  letter.  One  monition  ;  grnppic  with  the  renl  matter  under 
discussion  :  do  not  depart  from  it — your  Rule  of  Faiilj. 

J.  POWRR. 

T.  C.  LEVINS. 


JDrs.  SSrownlcc-s  JLclicr,  »^1>.  6. 

TO  DRS.  POWER,  &  VARELA,  k  MR.  LEVINS. 

Priests  :   1st  •'  How  do  you  know  the  Bible  to  be  tlic  word   of 
God  ?" 

Ans.  1st.  From  the  external  evidence  of  prophecy,  which  has 
been,  and  is  now,  fulfilling  before  our  eyes:  see  the  i)roof  in 
liishof)  Newton  on  the  prnj)hecies  ;  and  of  miracles  wrou<»ht  by 
the  inspired  writers,  and  which  were  continued  (btvvn  to  the 
time  of  St.  Augustine,  who  saw  some  wrought  :  and  the  gift  of 
tongues ;  by  which  all  the  nations  heard  the  gospel  in  their  own 
native  language.  Also  from  in/erna/  evidence;  namely,  their 
majesty  which  every  christian  and  every  reasonable  man  may 
feel  and  see  on  every  page,  contrasted  with  every  human  writer  : 
from  their  purity  which  no  man  could  have  conceived,  or  framed 
in  his  writings;  from  their  sublimity  in  the  conceptions  and  des- 
crif)tions  of  God,  of  heaven,  of  hell,  which  no  uninspired  man 
could  execute;  from  their  efficacy  in  convincing  and  converting 
sinners,  and  comforting  the  saints  :  no  human  composure  ever 
has  done  this,  'i'he  sacred  writings,  which  have  been  the  in- 
strument containing  the  gospel,  have  done  what  no  human  wri- 
ter can  do,  or  ever  lias  done  :  and,  from  their  uncorrupt  preserva- 
tion. While  the  whole  persecuting  power  of  Rome  pagan  was 
bent  on  their  destruction,  and  innumerable  errorists  and  heretics 
sought  to  corrupt  them, — neither  they,  nor  [iome  have  succeed- 
ed. All  the  Roman  Priests,  and  all  the  Voltaire  and  Paine  school, 
being  on  one  mind  here,  cannot  prove  one  sentence  ;  far  less  one 
inspired  hook  lost.  And  we  challenge  these  slanderers  of  God's 
**  pure  and  perfect  word,"  to  prove  one, — even  one  of  their 
slanders.  Moreover,  the  Bible  is  proved  to  be  the  word  of  God 
from  the  historical  evidence  of  tradition.  To  the  Christian 
Church,  as  well  as  to  the  Jewish  Church,  were  committed  the 
oracles  of  God.  The  hundreds  of  thousands  of  christians  who 
lived  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles  received  those  inspired  books 
from  the  Apostles,  and  Evangelists  :  and  being  fully  satisfied  of 
their  inspiration,  by  their  internal  evidence,  and  by  the  miracles 


143 

and  propliecies,  :\:rA  tongues,  given  in  proof  by  God's  inspired 
sservants,  the  clirisnaii  [Deniber.s  of  the  Church  trauj^milted  them 
to  their  children,  with  their  certification  of  this  evidence;  and 
ihey  to  their  chihlren,  until  they  have  reached  us.  And  all  the 
s;ections  of  the  Cfin relics  have  done  this  :  the  Bihle  has  come 
cloun  {()  us  hy  {-he  Si^v::^  and  Hebrews;  by  the  Syriac  (^'hurches, 
still  exi^tin,x  in  I'.nl  ii  ;  as  Dr.  Buchanan  who  lately  visited  them 
testifies:  and  by  i!ie  Greek  Church,  m'>re  ancient  and  more  f)Uie 
than  that  of  11<nne  :  and  by  the  iamous  African  Churches,  who 
in  the  days  af  Ari^tistine  aSKSolutely  denied  tlieir  dependence  on 
tlie  Roinish  church  ;  by  the  Waldensian  Churches  descended 
from  the  ancient  Italiik  Cliurchcs  :  and  who  possessed  the  very 
ancient  Latin  versi  >n,  calfed  the  Cid  Italick  Version  of  the 
Bible,  before  the  Vu};^ate  was  written  :  and  linally  by  the  Roman 
Church.  Moreover  ail  the  ancient  versions  of  the  Uiblc,  made 
in  the  first,  second,  and  tliird  centurit^s,  in  Asia,  in  Africa,  and 
Europe,  [lave  the  valid  authority  of  so  many  most  undoubted 
tratbtions  confirming  the  evitjem^e  of  the  existence  of  the  origi- 
nal word  of  God  :  amJ,  finally,  the  enemies  of  the  Church,  such 
as  ('el>us,  I^orphyry,  Zosimus,  and  Julian  the  Apostate  do  nil 
bear  their  testimony  to  tbe  autlHuity  and  genuineness  of  the 
Apostolical  writings. 

Thus,  on  thestrenf>th  of  this  full  and  r»  resistible  moral  evidence, 
do  we  believe  the  Bible  to  be  the  word  of  God.  We  are  not  so 
vteaky  and  bigoted,  aufl  f >oIish  as  t(»  believe  it,  merely  on  the 
Chtirch's  tradition.  'I'he  internal  eviden(!c  isasstr(»ng,  this  day, 
on  our  minds,  as  it  ever  w;is  :  and  we  have  the  constant  fulfilling 
«)f  predictions  biifore  fuir  Q\e»^  over  the  Cliurches,  antl  the  world. 
And,  fin;dly,  wk.  skk  it  MANiFr.sTLV  provko  in  the  conviction  and 
conversion  of  every  orre  that  is  broutjht  into  the  f<dd  of  God,  by 
the  Holy  Spirit.  Every  clnistian  conversion  by  the  gospel  read 
find  prcaclifni,  is  a  fresh  Jiiid  irresistible  demonstration  that  the 
Bilde  is  most  certainly,  and  evidently  the  word  of  God.  Dis- 
prove this. 

Friests  :  2d.  *'  How  do  you  know  which  books  were  written 
by  divine  inspiration?  The  Bible  cannot  prove  its  own  inspira- 
tion.'"' 

Ans.  2d.  No  Roman  Catholic,  or  Protestant  so  far  as  I  know, 
ever  said  to  a  Deist  that  the  Bible  pr«)ves  its  own  autJienlicit^/ 
and  gemdncness.  Your  Bull  Cnigenitus,  for  instance,  does  not, 
jiud  cannot  {.rove  its  own  authenticity  :  tlie  Magna  Charla,  and 
our  own  Declaration  of  Independence  do  not  prove  their  own 
authenticity.  Nr-ne  but  Ivonians  can  mistake  here.  Their 
wretched  education,  and  still  more  wretched  theology,  induce 
Uiem  to  think  that  there  is  only  one  form  of  evidence  to  establish 


143 

the  authenticity  and  divinity  of  the  Bible, — and  that  is, — ''  Holy 
Mothefs  testimony  and  authority  V  Never  was  there  such  ob- 
stinate i;^norance  and  wilfulness  !  And  all  the  foriic-harnniers  of 
all  our  iron  works  cannot  hammer  the  opjjosite  idea  into  their 
heads.  "  Neither  would  llicy  believe  tiiou<»li  one  rose  iVoni  the 
dead  I" 

We  know  "  whicli  hooks  were  written  by  divi[ie  inspiration,'* 
in  the  following  perfectly  satisfactory  manner. 

Tlie  authors  of  each  of  the  books  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  first 
gave  evidence  before  the  church,  by  workini^  miracles  and  pro- 
phecvinn;  and  speaking  tonjriies,  tiiut  they  were  the  accredited 
messengere*  of  God,  This  bein;;  settlcuJ,  tiiev  wrote  thfKse  books 
which  bear  their  names  at  the  command  of  God.  "  'i'hus  saith 
the  Lord,"  was  the  evidence  that  they  were  erjjoined  to  speak 
nnd  write.  'J'his  established  their  Divine  inspiration.  [Sec 
IIos  viii.  12 — John  xx.  31  —  Horn.  xv.  ^ — 2  Tim.  in  IG  —  Rev.  i. 
II.  &c  also  ihe  beginning  of  each  of  i^auTs  epistles  ]  liaving 
written  tiiem  by  inspiration,  they  delivered  (hem  publicly  to  the 
church,  certified  in  their  hand  writing;.  'I'his  established  their 
authenticity  and  genuineness  ;  the  ciiurch  saw  and  knew  that 
these  holy  authors  did  most  certainly  write  tiie  books,  which 
be;ir  their  name.  And  the  churches  in  Asia,  and  in  Greece,  and 
in  Africa,  and  in  Italy,  and  in  all  Europe,  handed  them  down 
from  generation  to  generation  ;  just  as  t!ie  Alagna  Charta  of 
England,  or  the  Declaralion  of  Independence,  is,  by  tradition, 
handed  down  from  iige  to  age.  And  it  was  just  as  im[)ossible 
to  add  to  these  holy  wiitings,  or  to  abstract  from  them  without 
immediate  detection,  one  book  or  even  one  sentence,  as  it  is 
without  detection  to  add  to  these  great  national  documents. 
And,  finally,  just  these  bookswiiich  compose  tiie  Bil)le,  and  no 
other  books  whatever,  have  h:id  tiiese  evidences.  And,  thus, 
we  know,  by  the  most  certain  demonstration,  what  books  were 
given  to  us  by  divine  inspiration  :  and  what  books  arc  not  in- 
spired ;  and  therefore,  apochryphal.     Disprove  this. 

Priests  i5d.     "  Does  the  Uible  contain  the  whole  vvrjrd  of  God  !" 

Ans.  3d  It  does.  And  the  same  evidence  which  establisfies 
the  fact  of  their  Divine  inspiration,  fully  establishes  this.  There 
is  no  inspired  book  lost.  Those  books  referred  to  by  deists,  and 
the  Romish  priests,  as  lost,  such  as  Jasher,  and  certain  epistles  and 
gospels,  were  not  given  by  insf)iration.  And  we  defy  all  the 
priesthood  of  Rome  to  [)rovc  their  inspiration. 

Let  them  not  shift  the  question.  We  make  a  rcBi.ic  call  on 
our  ['riests,  to  [>rove  the  inspiration  of  these  lost  books.  If 
they  do  not  finally  enter  on  the  proof  of  their  ins[)iration,  tlien 
we  shall  set  it  down  as  a  public  recantation  of  their  error;  and 
a  confciiiiiua  of  their  utt&r  uufuocss  to  ]:i-ovc  ihcir  position.  We 


144 

know  they  cannot ;  and  we  are  assured  they  dctre  not  offer  any 
defence  of  their  inspiration.  Remember  your  own  words,  the 
mere  fact  of  their  being  written  by  a  prophet,  or  an  Apostle,  as 
Barnaba?,  is  no 'evidence,  ah)ne,  of  their  inspiration.  Produce 
the  evidence  of  their  divinity,  which  we  have  for  "al!  Scrip- 
tures." You  cannot :  and  you  know  that  you  cannot.  Disprove 
this. 

I  tell  you,  gentlemen,  it  is  just  as  impossible  that  any  of  the 
inspired  books  could  be  lost,  by  the  carelessness  of  the  church, 
or  the  cunning  of  the  enemy,  as  it  is  impossible  that  a  book  of 
the  common  law  of  the  United  States,  or  old  England  ;  or  any 
part  of  the  Magna  Charta,  or  our  Declaration  of  Independence 
can  be  abstracted  and  lost ! 

Such  a  supposed  loss  could  not  take  place  in  the  days  of  the 
Apostles  ;  for  they  could  bear  their  testimony  to  all  that  was 
inspired  ;  and  against  all  that  was  forged.  It  could  not  take 
place  after  their  death,  for  before  the  death  of  the  last  of  the 
Apostles,  namely,  John — copies  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  even  of 
the  entire  and  perfect  canon,  were  multiplied  over  Asia,  Africa, 
and  Europe.     Disprove  this. 

Priests  4.  How  can  you  prove  that  the  Scriptures  alone  are 
the  suiBcient  rule'?" 

Ans.  4.  By  the  strongest  and  purest  testimony  that  can  exist : 
namely,  the  testimony  of  Almighty  God.  And  bold  and  unblush- 
ing must  that  Christian- Deist  be  who  shall  dare  to  give  the  lie 
to  the  Almighty.  Psalm  xix. — "The  law  of  the  Lord  is  perfect: 
converting  the  soul  :  tiie  testimony  of  the  Lord  is  sure,  making 
wise  the  simple:  the  judgments  of  the  Lord  are  true  and  alto- 
gether righteous."  "  By  them  is  thy  servant  warned  ;  and  in 
keeping  of  them  there  is  great  reward."  The  whole  of  Psalm 
cxix  :  and  particularly  these: — "Through  thy  precepts  I  get 
understanding  : — "  Thy  word  is  a  lamp  to  my  feet ;  a  light  to  my 
path."  "  Thy  word  is  very  pure:"  &c  Lsniah  viii  19.  20.  "If 
they  speak  not  according  to  this  word,  it  is  bijcause  there  is  no 
light  in  them."  John  v.  39.  "  Search  in  the  Scriptures,  for  in 
them  ye  think  ye  have  eternal  life  :  and  they  are  they  which  tes- 
tify of  me."  John  xvii.  17 — "  Sanctify  them  through  thy  truth  : 
thy  word  is  truth."  2  Peter  i.  19.  "  VVe  have  a  more  sure  word 
of  prophecy,  whereuiito  ye  do  well  that  yo  take  heed,"  &c.  2 
Tim.  iii.  15.  "The  lioly  Scriptures  are  able  to  make  thee  wise 
unto  salvation,"  &c.  And,  finally,  they  make  "the  man  of  God 
perfect,  and  thoroughly  furnished  unto  all  good  works." 

Thus  does  the  Almighty  God  solemnly  declare  the  Scriptures 
the  only  and  perfectly  sufficient  rule  for  every  purpose  of  salva- 
tion :  and  in  languages  so  plain  that,  as  the  prophet  says,  "  he 
ihai  runneth  amy  read  I"    It  is  impossibid  without  design,  to 


145 

mistake  :  it  is  impossible,  without  deliberate  blasphemy,  to  deny 
it  :  it  is  a  deadly  error  to  give  the  lie  to  the  God  of  truth  !  Thus 
we    have  fully  met  all  your  infidel  queries.     Disprove  this. 

Rev.  Gentlemen  : — I  finished  in  my  last,  my  ten  arguments 
DSjainst  your  Roman  Catholic  rule  of  faith.  I  have  sufficient 
reason  to  know  that  the  enliy^htened  public  are  satisfied  that  these 
arguments  are  perfectly  conclusive.  Your  pretensions  to  the 
rule  being  entirely  anniiiilated, — the  claims  set  forth  in  behalf  of 
our  Rule  and  Judge  of  controversy,  are  of  course,  without  a  ri- 
val from  your  anniiiilated  system.  I  call  the  attention  of  the 
Christian  public,  both  Protestant  and  Roman  Catholic,  to  the 
fact,  that  the  priests  have  not  c.vamined  or  refuted  one  of  these 
ten  arguments:  they  have  not  even  touched  one  of  them.  The 
strongest  thing  they  have  said  is  this  : — "  What  has  all  this  to  do 
with  the  defence  of  your  Protestant  Rule'?"  'I'liis  is  really  amu- 
sing. So  utterly  destitute  do  you  seem  to  be  of  the  true  h^gic, 
and  the  scientific  rules  of  defence  and  offence, — that  even  while 
your  whole  magazine  of  amunition  was  in  the  act  of  being  blown 
up,  about  your  ears,  you  gravely  ask  us,  "  pray  what  has  all  this 
to  do  with  your  defewce  of  the  Protestant  Rule  9"  I  had  thought, 
gentlemen,  that  there  were  only  two  claims  set  up:  that  of  the 
Protestant  Rule  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  :  in  which  the  infallible 
Judge,  namely,  Almighty  God,  the  Spirit  speaks  unto  us,  by 
that  which  is  already  revealed,  and  closed  forever,  and  pronounc- 
ed by  the  Almighty  perfect  and  all-sufficient  "  to  make  the 
man  of  God  perfect  ;"  and  on  the  other  hand,  the  Roman 
Catholic  rule  ;  which  your  church,  in  fatal,  but  characteristic 
union  with  the  deists,  sets  up  in  opposition  to  the  holy  Bible; 
even  as,  with  unparalleled  daring  and  impiety,  you  place  the 
Pope  and  council  in  the  throne  of  judii;ment,  in  rivalship  with 
the  eternal  and  Almighty  God!  And  of  these  two  rival  claim- 
ants, your  rule  and  the  whole  of  your  presumptuous  assertions, 
being  demolished  and  utterly  annihilated  :  of  course,  our  Rule, 
stands  forward,  in  "  the  dependency"  of  the  argument,  alone, 
and  without  any  rival. 

I  shall  now  redeem  my  pledge,  and  take  up  your  various  ob- 
jections, errors  and  falsehoods.  I  have  postponed  tiie  examina- 
tion of  them,  to  this  place  ;  because  every  one  saw  that  you 
threw  them  out, — not  at  all  because  you,  yourselves,  believed 
them  :  but  simply  because  you  availed  yourselves  of  every  diffi- 
culty, and  of  even  trifles  to  impede  us  in  our  demolition  of  your 
Rule.  You  had  not  the  merit,  nor  the  means  of  throwing  down 
even  a  golden  apple,  to  turn  us  out  of  our  straight  forward 
course. 

1.  One  of  the  main  objections,  and  that  on  which  my  oppo- 
nents establish  the  last  hope  of  their  sinking  cause,  is  taken 
No.  10.— 19. 


146 

from  their  view  of  traditions.  Their  church  like  that  of  the 
Hebrew  church,  had  the  oracles  of  Cod  committed  to  them; 
they  conveyed  them  down  to  these  times.  This  seems  to  be 
the  innocent  position  ;  but  it  was  assumed  as  a  position  on  which 
to  plant  the  Anti-christian  lever,  by  which  they  have  moved  and 
convulsed  the  civil  and  political  world.  ^' They  have  been,"  as 
Augustine  says,  "  the  librarian  of  the  church  ;"  or  as  another 
shrewdly  observes,  "  the  mere  carrier  of  the  mail-bag;"  to  trans- 
mit to  a  whole  vicinity,  the  contents  of  that  mail-bag,  for  their 
own  benefit,  and  that  of  others. 

But  could  the  gravest  refrain  from  laughter,  if  the  post-boy, 
calling  the  community  together,  should  gravely  say,  "  It  is  well 
known  that  the  general  government  has  committed  to  me  the 
one  line  of  carrying  the  precious  contents  of  this  mail-bag  : 
therefore  in  virtue  of  the  right  of  being  one  carrier,  1  claim  the 
right  of  being  all  the  carriers  :  and  I  claim  also  the  right  to  keep, 
in  my  power,  all  the  contents  of  this  mail  :  and  all  the  other 
mails  ;  and  to  give  my  own  personal  explanations  of  every  letter 
in  it.  He  who  sent  them,  and  they  to  whom  they  are  sent  have 
no  such  power  :  and  I  shall  send  you  to  tiie  fire  of  perdition,  if 
you  oppose  my  will.  Moreover,  in  right  of  this  power  entrust- 
ed to  me  as  mail  boy,  I  claim  the  spiritual  and  civil  power  over 
you  each,  one,  and  all ;  soul  and  body  :  to  rule  your  destiny  here  ; 
to  permit  you,  or  refuse   you,  heaven,  for  money,  as  I  see  fit !" 

This  claim  set  up  by  the  post  boy,  is  literally  what  the  pope 
and  his  priests  have  set  up.  Because  they  happened  to  be  the 
mail  carrier  of  one  line  ; — because  as  one  section  of  the  church, 
they  carried  the  Bible  down  to  their  vicinity,  for  which  they  re- 
ceived their  to  ages  :  they  arrogate  these  extravagant  ghostly 
claims  to  spiritual  dominion  over  men's  souls,  bodies,  and  pro- 
perty. Had  it  not  been  for  the  inconceivable  blindness  and  ig- 
norance of  the  dark  ages,  these  claims  would  have  been  receiv- 
ed only  with  indignation, — or  to  say  the  least,  with  peals  of 
laughter  !  The  post  boy's  ruviiigi  were  soberness  compared  to 
this. 

The  whole  of  their  doctrine  touching  traditions,  is  involved 
in  fanaticism  and  extravagance.     For  instance  : — 

1st.  Availing  themselves  of  the  ambiguity  of  the  word,  they 
use  it  to  mean  at  one  time,  the  transmission  of  the  Bible  to  our 
names  ;  at  another,  to  mean  those  oral  doctrines,  undefined,  in- 
visible, artificial,  and  intangible,- — yet  most  convenient  for  a 
mischievous  and  designing  power, — as  an  instrument  to  origi- 
nate, and  establish  new  doctrines  and  rites. 

2.  The  Romish  church  holds,  that,  by  tradition  alone,  the  evi- 
dence of  the  divine  inspiration  of  the  Bible  is  established.    Sh« 


147 

merfi^es  the  whole  internal,  and  the  other  branches  of  the  exter- 
nal, in  this;  for  one  grand  selfish  object,  namely, — sjain. 

3.  She  pronounces  herself  the  only  church  of  Christ :  she  is 
*'  the  church,"  and  all  the  churches  that  flourish  in  Syria,  in 
Greece,  Africa,  and  in  Europe,  are  in  her  ambitious  vievvs^  utterly 
nothing.     The  same  selhsli  end  is  here  manifest. 

4.  It  is  the  tradition  of  this  one  only  churcii,  which  bestows  on 
the  Bible  all  the  evidence  of  its  inspiration  and  its  authority. 

5.  Because  she  possessed  the  Scriptures,  no  account  being 
made  of  the  traditions  of  the  other  church,  from  which  also  comes 
down  an  unbroken  line  of  the  scri[)tures, — and  l)ecause  she  hands 
them  down,  as  the  carrier  by  tradition. — therefore  all  their  divine 
authority  is  deiived  from  her,  and  from  her  alonel  Tiiis  is  not 
the  whole  of  her  maniac  claims: -for — 

6.  This  simple  handing  down  of  the  Bible  she  says,  gives  her 
the  entire  ri^ht  of  determining  the  authority,  and  of  fixing  the 
meanin:^  of  God's  word  :  and  of  dictating  that  meaning  to  the 
consciences  of  all  her  subjects.  Nay,  like  the  tyrant,  intoxicated 
with  the  fury  of  ambition,  she  claims  from  this  act  of  conveying 
down  the  scriptures,  an  unbounded  ghostly  power  over  all  souls 
and  bodies  and  the  property  of  men  :  she  is  thence  a  God  on 
earth:  she  pardons  sin  :  creates  new  objects  of  worship,  by  the 
power  of  canonizing.  And  to  crown  the  whole  of  her  unheard 
of  claims, — wherever  she  meets,  even  in  the  pages  of  Protestants, 
with  the  word  Church,  or  Catholic, — she  assumes  it  as  granted 
that  she  only  is  meant :  and  that  all  our  Protestant  champions 
even  when  opposing  her,  meant  only  homage  to  her,  because 
they  defended  "  the  Church,"  the  "Catholic,"  or  general  Church, 
— which  of  course,  could  mean  only  the  Roman  sect  !  Such  un- 
paralleled reasoning  pervades  all  your  letters. 

II.  There  is  one  leading  sentiment  interwoven  into  all  the  ob- 
jections of  my  opponents  :  and  it  is  characteristic  of  catholicity, 
at  home  and  in  Europe  :  it  is  this.  The  priesthood  is  a  spiritual 
nobility;  an  exclusive  aristocracy  of  an  awful  order:  tl)ey  are 
in  fact,  every  thing  :  and  the  pof)r  laity  are  nothing,  utterly  no- 
thing !  Hence  the  terms  in  the  priests'  letter  before  us,  "the 
poor  ignorant  people,"  of  "scanty  intellects,',  and  "  weak  capa- 
cities "  "  Strange  to  think  that  the  Redeemer  should  require 
such  to  pick  out  their  religion  from  the  Scriptures  !"  And  this 
system  deems  it  not  enough  to  brutalize  the  laity,  it  also  insults 
them.  And  hence  the  conclusion  which  the  priests  draw  from 
tiie  fact  of  their  degradation,  is  as  curious  in  point  of  logic,  as  it 
is  cruelty  in  the  destitution  of  benevolence :  namely,  because 
they  are  ignorant,  therefore,  vre  will  not  allow  thena  the  great 
means  appointed  by  God  to  instruct  them  :  the  laity  shall  not 


148 

have  the  right  to  hear  what  God  says  to  them,  without  a  priests' 
written  lisence.     "  But  God  has  given  the  word  as  a  light  to  our 
feet,  and  a  lamp  to  our  path."     "  1'he  man  of  God  is  made  per- 
fect by  the  Scriptures,  and  is  thoroughly  furnished  by  them  unto 
all  good  works."     2  Tim.   iii.    16.  &c.     "No,  my  child,"  says 
Holy  Mother  by  her  priests,  •'  thai  light  does  not  mean  light : 
that  lamp  is  not  the  lamp  :  God's  law  though  perfect,  is  **a  falla- 
cious," and  mischievous  Rule  ;  *'  perfect,"  does  not  mean  "  suf- 
ficient !"     *'  And  mark  me,   my  son,"    says   she  "  we  are  very 
watchful,  and  very  benevolent:  th(>ugh  men  have  thinking  pow- 
ers, they  have  no  right  before  me,  to  think  !     Though  God  has 
given  to  each  private  mnn  a  judgement,  yet  none  have  the  rights 
of  private  judgement.     Tliough  there  are  some  things  hard  to  be 
understood,  and  only  some,  yet  it  is  by  far  the  safest  way  to  keep 
out  of  the  laity's  hands  all  the  plain  and  easy  parts  too.    Though 
some  men,  namely,  the  ^'  unlearned  and  unstable"  do  wrest  the 
Scriptures,  yet  it  will  be  an  act  of  pure  benevolence  to  abstract 
the  whole  Bible  from  the  hands  of  all  I"  "  But  the  Apostle  does 
not  say  that  any  of  the  Scriptures  sre  beyond  the  possibility  of 
being  understood."     They  are  dusnceta,  hard,  not  impossible  to 
be  understood.      Would  it  not  be  a  little  more  bene\^olent  still 
to  make  the  people  "  learned  and  thence"  stable,  by  a  solid  ed- 
ucation 9  '*That  is  wliatyour  heretics  say;"  but  says  Holy  Mother, 
"  there  is  nothing  like  a  cloud  of  darkness  hovering  over  the 
minds  of  the  "  low,  vulgar,  and  poor  ignorant  laity  ;"  it  is  highly 
salutary  :  our  priestly  influence  would  vanish  in  six  weeks,  if 
this  cloud  were  unhappily  dispersed.     For  we  know  this  by  our 
bitter  experience,  ever  since  "  the  squabble  between  Mr.  Martin 
Luther  and  Pope  Leo  X."     As  certainly  as  the  "  poor  ignorant 
people,"  begin  to  read,  they  will  think  for  themselves  :  then  they 
will  reclaim  from  us  the  rights  "of  your  accursed  private  judg- 
ment:" and  the  right  of  going  directly  to  God  himself,  to  get 
their  sins  pardoned  for  nothing  !     Then  the  asses  which  we  have 
long  bridled,  and  ridden,  most  joyfully,  and  peacefully,  and  pro- 
fitably,  will  slip  the  noose.     They  farewell   to  the  gains    and 
sweets  of  priestcraft  ;  and  the  silver  shrines  of  the  great  goddess, 
the  Queen  of  Heaven  !  ! 

HI.  Another  prominent  feature  in  your  logic,  gentlemen,  has 
been  the  Vicious  Circle.  When  we  demand  of  the  Roman 
Catholics,  "How  do  you  prove  your  rule  to  be  infallible'?" 
And  whence  do  you  establish  the  marks  of  the  true  Church  ?" 
They  appeal  to  Math,  xxviii.  19.  and  to  the  passage  relative  to 
Peter  the  Rock.  In  fact  they  seek  proofs  of  their  Church  out 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures :  this  their  fathers  have  done;  and  even 
Bellarraine  De.  Verb.  1.2.  says,  *»  Sacra  Scripiura,&.c."  '^Sacred 


449 

Scripture  ia  regula  credendi  certissima,  the  most  certain  Rule  of 
Faith."  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  whole  course  of  this  contro- 
versy, tlie  priests  have  fiercely  maintained  that  the  Scriptures, 
their  inspiration,  and  tlieir  authority  depend  on  the  Church  ! 
And  thus  "  Holy  Mother,"  assumes  a  circular  attitude,  precisely 
like  I'le  following.  A  certain  Estate  is  in  suit  in  Chancery  ;  a 
female  of  ratlier  suspicions  character,  with  a  few  characteristic 
attendants,  not  a  whit  holier  than  they  should  be,  appears  in 
Court,  with  u  parchment  roll  in  her  hand  ;  she  claims  the  pro- 
perty on  the  evidence  of  this  parchment  roll.  "  Who  are  you  T* 
says  the  Court ;  "  Who  I  am  you  can  know  by  the  most  perfect 
evidence  of  this  parchment  writing."  They  look  into  the  roll  ; 
there  is  nothing  there  but  what  is  unfavorable  to  her.  *'  But 
what,  and  wlience  is  this  roll  '?"  says  the  court.  "  What  that 
deed  is,  and  whence  its  evidence,  you  can  know,"  she  says,  '*  in 
the  most  perfect  manner  from  my  oral  testimony.  My  lips  cer- 
tify that  will  ;  and  that  will  certifies  me!"  This  is  the  literal 
argument  of  the  Romish  priests  !  ! 

IV.  One  objection,  Rev  gentlemen,  I  style  your  stereotype 
objection  ;  argument  it  is  not ;  and  you  have  copied  it  from 
Mumford  and  Milner  ;  it  is  this: — the  Protestant  Rule  is  the 
Bible  as  explained  by  each  one,  by  private  judgment  and  his  own 
private  interpretation.  This  has  been  answered  and  exposed  a 
hundred  times  by  our  writers  ;  and  yet,  it  is  deliberately  and  con- 
stantly urged.  This  [  call  as  deliberate  a  slander,  as  it  would  be 
on  my  part,  did  I  assert  that  you  recite  the  prayers  of  Moham- 
med at  Mass  !  No  Protestant  says,  the  Bible,  as  it  is  explain- 
ed by  each  one  by  private  interpretation,  is  the  Rule. 
The  reason  is  plain;  it  involves  in  it  a  contradiction:  the 
Bible  manifestly  cannot  be  the  Rule,  if  each  man's  private  sen- 
timent be  the  Rule.  The  priest,  therefore,  who  reiterates 
this  charge,  contradicts  himself,  and  moreover,  bears  false 
witness  against  his  neii^hl)or.  And  yet  I  assure  my  rea- 
ders, that  they  will  find  our  priests  recklessly  renewing  this 
slanderous  charge  to  the  end.  The  reason  is  plain  :  did  they 
take  our  own  doctrine,  in  our  own  words,  and  sense,  it  is  utterly 
impossible  for  them,  for  lack  of  matter,  to  advance  one  rational 
objection.  The  Protestant  Church  unanimously  proclaims  that 
her  RULE  IS  the  word  of  God  ;  and  the  judge  and  interpreter 
IS  the  Almighty  God  speaking  in  it,  to  us  ;  plainly  and  clear- 
ly ;  because  God  intends  it  that  we  should  understand  him. 

V.  When  we  urged  on  you,  gentlemen,  the  fact  of  your  cor- 
rupting the  Word  of  God  by  adding  to  it  the  Apocrypha,  and 
traditions  which  the  fathers  rejected,  you  turned  on  us,  and  re- 
plied, by  charging  on  us  the  same  sin  !  [See  their  letter  No. 
2,]     As  the   venerable  Jerooie  said,  on  a  similar  charge,    "  We 


150 

cannot  refrain  from  laughter,"  to  hear  you  say  that  Calvinists  add 
to  the  Gospel,  and  the  Epistles;  the  institutes  of  Calvin!  And 
the  Heidelberg  Catechism  to  the  Apocalypse  !  !  "  And  their  pro- 
fessions" (you  mean  confessions)  "of  faith  to  the  Bible." 

According  to  this  unique  and  irresistible  logic,  we  shall  pre- 
sently hear  it  asserted,  tliat  Dr.  Power's  last  sermon  in  St.  Pa- 
trick's, is  an  awful  and  impious  addition  to  the  Pope's  Bull,  Uni- 
genitus!  And  my  Reverend  opponent's  sacred  tonsurx  is  an 
addition  to  the  Pope's  tiara,  and  will  make  it  no  more  the  triple 
but  the  quadruple  Crown  I  What  miracles  will  not  the  myste- 
rious powers  of  sacerdotal  logic  effect? 

But,  after  all,  can  it  be  possible  that  our  meaning  is  misunder- 
stood, when  we  say,  that  the  Council  of  Trent  has  added  many 
books  to  the  sacied  Cannon^/  You  are  aware  that  the  Triden- 
tine  Fathers  declared  certain  books  to  be  as  much  inspired,  as 
the  Holy  Scriptures:  and  tlicnce,  enjoined  them  to  be  read  with 
the  same  *'  holy  and  [)i()us  veneration,"  as  the  rest  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. Now,  surely,  you  do  not  mean,  gravely,  to  charge  it  on 
us,  that  we  canonize  the  Catechisms,  or  confessions;  far  less  the 
writings  of  private  individuals  !  ! 

VI.  "The  Hebrews,"  you  say,  *' were  without  the  written 
word  of  God  for  fourteen  generations;  hence  the  Scriptures 
could  not  be  their  Rule  of  Faith."  Gentlemen,  you  appear  very 
learned  in  your  letter  No.  2.  You  give  us  a  sort  of  a  dissertation  on 
the  Hebrews  losing  their  native  tongue  after  the  great  captivity  ; 
and  the  introduction  of  the  Syriac  among  the  Jews  :  for  fourteen 
generations,  you  say,  the  Jews  had  not  the  Old  Testament  in 
their  vernacular;  it  was  read  in  Hebrew  to  them,  a  tongue  not 
understood. 

All  this  is  borrowed  plumage,  plucked  from  your  convenient 
Mumford,  the  Jesuit.  But  I  deny  this  utterly,  and  I  call  on  you 
for  his  and  your  proof,  that  the  Jews  were  without  the  Scrip- 
tures in  their  vernacular  tongue  for  fourteen  generations.  Mum- 
ford's  assertion  is  no  proof  to  you,  or  to  me.  I  am  prepared  to 
prove  your  and  his  assertion  utterly  false. 

I  shall  name  only  one  fact.  Ezra,  after  the  captivity,  read 
the  book  of  the  law  to  the  people  ;  this  shows  beyond  contradic- 
tion, that  they  understood  the  Hebrew.  He  read  the  law,  and 
as  a  preacher,  gave  the  sense,  and  made  the  people  understand 
it.  Ezra  was  not  initiated  into  the  edifying  practice  of  praying 
and  preaching  in  Latin  or  Cfjinese.  to  his  people!  And  it  is  in- 
teresting to  know,  that  a!l  the  Jews,  except  the  grossly  apostate 
Jews,  like  you,  keep  up  this  custom  of  Ezra  ;  the  apostate  Jews, 
like  you,  continue  the  Iriily  edifying  and  highly  interesting  habit 
of  employing  in  worshif),  an  unknown  tongue  !  This,  by  the 
way,  might  do  with  the  Jews,  who  prayed  only  to  him  who  knowi 


151 

all  tongues ;  but  with  you  it  is  a  fatal  and  tbolisli  work — and  I 
beg  you  to  look  well  to  it  ;  for  you  ought  to  know  that  the  Vir- 
gin Mary.  ''  the  glorious  Mediatrix,"  to  whom  the  most  of  your 
prayers  are  otfered,  being  a  Jewess  knew  Hebrew  and  Syriac  — 
but  nothing  of  the  Latin, — never  having  been  at  Rome  !  !  Hence 
all  your  prayers  arc  thrown  away  upon  her,  even  supposing  you 
could  get  near  enough  to  her,  lor  her  to  hear  you. 

VH.  If  the  Scriptures  had  been  tlie  Rule  of  Faith,  say  you, 
the  Church  would  always  have  had  them  in  writing;  but  before 
Moses  there  was  no  writing  ;  and  in  Christ's  time,  they  had  not 
the  New  Testament.  We  reply  that  in  all  periods  before  the 
written  word  was  completed,  the  Church  had  the  same  Rule 
and  Judge.  They  had  the  word  of  God,  uttered  by  inspiration, 
from  the  lips  of  the  Patriarchs,  and  Prophets,  and  from  Christ, 
and  his  Apostles.  And  the  same  Judge,  namely,  the  Holy 
Ghost,  spoke  unto  them,  and  determined  all  controversies  ;  and 
all  that  was  necessary  to  faith,  and  sound  morals.  This  favorite 
objection  of  our  priests  is  supremely  silly. 

VIH.  In  your  industrious  zeal  against  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
you  object  to  our  Rule,  that  if  Christ  had  designed  them  for  the 
Rule,  he  would  have  commanded  the  disciples  to  write,  and  to 
distribute  Bibles;  on  the  contrary,  he  said,  "Go  and  teach  all 
nations  :"  and  by  "  teachin;^;,"  you  assume,  without  proof,  that 
instruction  by  the  lips  is  meant. 

To  this,  I  again  reply,  that  '*  teaching"  implies  as  much  the 
use  of  writing,  as  of  oral  instruction.  And  our  Lord's  com- 
mand to  teach,  included  as  much  an  injunction  to  write,  aa  ta 
speak.  Apostolical  facts  confirm  this:  they  didwrite,  as  well  as 
preach,  they  declared  that  they  were  enjoined  to  write.  See 
Revel,  i.  19.  And  their  vvrilin<is  they  left  to  the  church  as  a 
Rule  of  Faith.  John,  xx.  31.  Luke,  i.  3.  4.-2.  Tim.  iii.  16, 
Rom.  xvi.  26. 

You  object,  in  the  borrowed  words  of  Mumford,  that  if  the 
Scriptures  were  the  Rule  of  Faith,  the  Apostles  would  have  pro- 
cured the  Bible  to  each  different  nation  in  its  own  native  tongue. 
But  they  did  not,  and  gave  no  orders  for  their  successors  to  do 
it."  [See  their  letter.  No.  2.]  I  re[)ly  that  you  cannot  prove 
that  they  did  not  enjoin  them  to  do  this.  One  thing  is  manifest 
from  Paul's  enjoining  the  speaking  in  known  tongues,  that  he 
and  his  associates  did  preach  to  the  nations  in  their  own  native 
tongue.  [See  1  Cor.  xiv.  G  — 12.]  The  Apostle  would  have 
made  a  glorious  figure,  if  he  had  preached  the  gospel  to  the 
plain  Greeks  in  Chinese  ;  or  taught  the  Romans  in  native  Irish  ! 
Or  to  the  Scotch  and  Irish,  in  flowing  Latin  I  The  fact  is  this, 
the  Almighty  set  the  mark  of  his  strong  reprobation  against  thii 


152 

detestible  foolery  by  his  gift  of  tongues  to  the  Apostles.  Rather 
than  permit  his  servants  to  insult  the  people,  and  offer  an  outrage 
to  common  sense,  by  talking  to  them  in  an  unknown  tongue, 
God  wrought  a  splendid  miracle,  and  gave  the  preachers  the  gift 
of  tongues.  And,  finally,  they  used  the  Greek  of  the  Hebraic 
idiom,  a  language,  says  Cicero,  spoken  over  all  the  East,  and 
West.  It  is  true,  you  object  again,  with  Mumford,  "  that  it  was 
only  the  well  educated  in  these  countries,  who  understood  the 
Greek  !"  That  is  exactly  what  we  mean.  And  hence,  in  all 
nations  there  were  multitudes  of  learned  men  vviio  could  render 
the  Greek  Septuagint,  and  the  Greek  New  Testament  into  all 
the  different  languages,  as  Christianity  spread  among  the  nations. 
And  these  men  needed  no  command,  but  tiirit  of  reason  and  com- 
mon sense,  to  move  them  to  this  duty.  They  were  enjoined  to 
teach  all  men.  But  without  books,  teaching-  could  not  be  car- 
ried on,  when  the  Holy  Spirit  of  inspiration  departed.  While 
he  was  in  the  church,  as  before  Moses  :  and  before  the  New 
Testament  was  written,  the  church  having  the  law  spoken  by 
immediate  revelations,  could  do  without  inspired  writings  but 
just  as  he  was  retiring,  were  the  inspired  writings  filled 
up.  And,  in  fine,  it  is  a  matter  of  historical  fact  that  the  sacred 
writings  were  translated  in  various  languages,  even  before  the 
last  of  the  Apostles,  and  Apostolical  fathers  died.  Witness  the 
ancient  Syriac  :  and  soon  after,  the  ancient  Italick,  or  Latin 
version,  before  the  Vulgate :  the  Egyptian:  the  Persian,  the 
Ethiopian,  the  Slavonic.  [See  Home's  Introd.  vol.  i.  p.  96, 
and  vol.  ii.  chap.  v.  where  a  minute  account  of  them  is  given.] 
IX.  In  every  attempt  at  argument,  gentlemen,  I  discover  one 
of  your  great  pervading  errors  :  it  is  this  :  you  claim  infallibility 
for  your  Rule  of  Faith.  But  you  have  never  preserved,  nor  even 
made,  the  distinction  between  objective  and  subjective  infalli- 
bility. In  the  Protestant  Rule  of  Faith,  there  is  an  objective 
infallibilty.  It  cannot  be  otherwise  ;  because  it  is  Almighty 
God  who  is  speaking  to  us  in  liis  Holy  Scriptures.  But  there 
is  no  such  thing  as  subjective  infallibility  :  the  subject  on  whom 
it  operates  is  not  infallible  :  it  does  not  make  all  men  infallible 
in  their  views.  By  an  accurate  square  rule  of  two  feet,  a  car- 
penter is  guided  infallibly,  in  his  accuracy,  in  building  a  house. 
But  that  same  rule  in  the  hands  of  a  child  or  blind  man,  will  not 
regulate  the  building  ;  or  make  the  child,  and  the  blind  man  in- 
fallibly accurate  ;  and  yet  it  is  the  same  perfect  rule  in  the  hands 
of  all  three.  The  fault  lies  in  the  subject  ;  not  in  the  rule  ob- 
jectively. The  royal  psalmist  Uavid  distinctly  recognizes  this 
by  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit :  "  Open  thou  mine  eyes  that 
I  may  behold  wondrous  things  out  of  thy  law.'*  Ps.  cxix.  18. 
Gentlemen,  you  confound  these  two  things,  with  studious  care, 


15S 

in  all  your  declamatory  opposition  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  :  and 
the  issue  of  your  argument,  pardon  me,  I  mean  no  insult  in  call- 
ing it  argument,  is  worthy  of  this  wretched  logic.  You  become 
unintelligible,  and  you  conclude  nothing,  and  less  than  nothing. 
We  have  not,  however,  observed  this  mode  of  argument  against 
your  Rule :  for  we  have  shown,  it  is  believed,  to  the  entire 
satisfaction  of  the  Christian  public,  Jst,  That  you  have  no  in- 
fallible Rule  whatever  :  because  with  the  Deistical  School,  you 
abanlon  the  Holy  Scriptures;  and  with  characteristic  malignity 
even  taunt  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  volumes,  inspired  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.  2d.  That  though  you  had  such  u  Kule.  your  Church 
and  Priesthood  could  no  more  witid  it,  to  llie  cllecling  of  any 
practical  application,  than  a  man  can  do  it,  who  is  slricken  blind 
by  heaven's  liglitning  ;  or  a  wretched  maniac,  who  decks  himself 
in  a  triple  crown,  and  dreams  that  he  is  Pope,  and  the  V^icar  of 
heaven  !  And  Ml,  that  did  even  such  a  rule  exist,  your  succes- 
sion is  utterly  cut  oft'  and  annihilated;  and  that  you  have  neither 
church  nor  Pope  nor  Priest,  nor  Sacrament !  And  this  argument 
you  have  overlooked  :  and  dare  not  touch  ! 

X,  I  come  now  to  your  often  repeated  assertion,  that  many, 
— nay,  even  twenty  books  of  the  Old  Testament  are  lost.  And 
among  these  you  reckon.  "  The  book  of  the  wars  of  God," 
<*  Jasher,"  "  Nathan,"  'Tddo,"  «'  Solomon's  sayings,-'  "  the  epis- 
tle from  the  Corinthians  to  Paul,"  "  the  epistle  from  Laodicea." 
In  reply,  1st.  I  shall,  for  a  moment,  suppose  what  you  affirm  to 
be  correct.  And  as  you  make  the  church  to  be  the  infallible 
guardian  and  keeper  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  not'only — but  also 
the  very  fountain  of  their  purity  and  authority, — it  is  evident, 
on  your  own  principles,  that  she  has  been  guilty  of  a  most 
scandalous  and  mortal  sin,  in  permitting  twenty  books  to  be 
lost!  But  you  make  the  church  the  infallible  Rule.  Here,  then, 
your  infallible  Rule  has  committed  a  mortal  sin  ;  inasmuch  as 
she  has  betrayed  God's  cause,  and  wantonly  lost  twenty  books  ! 
Either  she  is  not  the  infallible  Rule  and  keeper  of  God's  word; 
or  no  books  are  lost ! 

2d.  The  allusion  to  these  books,  as  "  Jasher,"  &c.  by  the  in- 
spired writer  is  no  evidence  of  their  inspiration,  or  their  ever 
being  a  part  of  the  holy  canon.  None  of  the  inspired  writers 
call  them  "  Scripture  ;"  none  of  them  quote  them  as  "  Scripture.'* 
They  simply  allude  to  them,  as  St.  Paul  does,  in  some  of  his 
sayings  and  epistles,  to  certain  heathen  poets.  Thus,  in  the  Acts, 
in  his  discourse  to  the  Athenians, — Paul  quotes  a  sentence  found 
in  Homer,  and  Hesiod  ;  also  in  Plato  and  Virgil,  An.  VI.  724  ; 
and  the  poet  Aralus.  And,  moreover,  in  Titus  i.  12,  Paul  quotes 
the  heathen  poet  Epimenides,  and  pronounces  his  testimony  s^ 
20 


154 

aolemn  truth.  Here  St.  Paul  does  exactly  no  more  than  what 
the  Old  Testament  writers  do  in  referring  to  **  Nathan,"  "  Iddo" 
or  "Gad."  Do  you  then  pronounce  Homer,  Hesiod,  and  Epi- 
menides,  gravely,  to  be  inspired  writers  9  Are  these  men's 
writings  then,  Holy  Scriptures,  because  St.  Paul  quotes  them? 
We  all  know  that  Father  Levins,  indeed,  quotes  his  Shakspeare 
ten  times  more  frequently  than  his  Bible  ;  and  far  more  accurate 
is  he,  and  more  at  home  with  Shakspeare  than  with  the  Holy 
Bible.  But  we  are  not  prepared  to  hear  Homer  and  Epimeni- 
des,  and  Shakespeare  canonized  !  Besides,  gentlemen,  your  ap- 
peal to  ChrysoBtom  does  not  help  your  sinking  cause.  I  deny 
—and  you  must  deny  as  well  as  I  do, — that  he  calls  these  books 
"Scriptures,"  or  a  portion  of  the  canon.  You  here  attempt  to 
palm  an  imposition  on  the  ignorant.  And  verily  you  shall  have 
your  reward.  That  eminent  father  calls  them  *"  prophetical 
monuments;"  or  remnants  of  prophetical  times  :  or  Jewish  na- 
tional monuments.  They  were  not  inspired  works :  no  honest 
man  dare  assert  that  they  were  :  he  cannot  prove  it,  if  he  is  so 
foolhardy  as  to  assert  it  They  were  the  national  legends,  tra- 
ditions or  Rabbinical  books,  containing  historical  sketches,  or 
expositions:  but  by  no  means  inspired. 

In  the  London  re-publication  of  Leslie's  **^  Short  Way  for  tho 
Jews  ;"  designed  as  a  tract  for  the  Jews,  you  will  see  a  clear 
evidence  and  illustration  of  the  ideal  now  advance.  Many  an- 
cient Rabbinical  books  were  found  to  contain  expositions  of 
passages,  relative  to  Messiah,  in  all  respects  favoring  the  views 
of  Christians ;  and  by  an  edict  of  the  Rabbis,  a  command  was 
given  to  the  synagogues  to  destroy  them.  These  "  prophetical 
monuments"  have  been  wantonly  destroyed.  You  can  see  a 
copy  of  this  Hebrew  injunction,  in  Leslie's  "  Short  way."  It  is 
in  this  city  :  I  have  read  it. 

I  have  only  to  add,  that  if  you  renew  the  charge  of  twenty 
books  being  lost,  without  giving  the  public  the  clear  and  full 
evidence  of  their  Divine  inspiration  and  of  their  having  formed 
a  part  of  the  sacred  canon,  then  you,  and  Contzen,  and  Serrarius, 
and  Mumford,  do  post  yourselves  as  deliberate  slanderers  of 
God's  word  ! 

XL  You  present  another  objection  :•■ — "  The  epistle  of  Barna- 
bas is  authentic,  but  not  inspired."  *'  Now,"  say  you, — "if  the 
certainty  of  receiving  the  epistles  of  Paul,  pure  and  entire  from 
his  hands,  as  an  apostle,  be  your  reason  for  admitting  their  in- 
spiration, tell  us  u  hv  you  reject  the  epistle  of  Barnabas,  the 
apostle?"  [Lett.  2.]    ' 

Even  admitting  your  absurd  position  that  there  is  no  other 
©yjdence  of  inspiration,  but  that  of  tradition,  there  is  no  difficulty 


156 

here  in  answering  your  question.  Barnabas  never  laid  claimi 
to  inspiration  ;  he  did  not  lay  his  epistle  before  the  churches  aa 
inspired  :  hence  the  church  never  declared  it  as  inspired  :  nor  re- 
ceived it  as  such.  Hence  it  wants  the  internal  and  the  external 
evidence.     This  was  a  miserable  fetch  of  an  infidel. 

I  cannot  omit  here  an  amusing  circumstance,  relative  to  an 
extraordinary  discovery  which  my  profoundly  learned  opponents 
have  made  in  their  last  letter.  Though  I  have  formerly  included 
tradition  and  the  Church's  testimony,  in  the  list  as  one  of  the 
evidences  of  the  truth  of  Divine  inspiration,  they  have  just  dis- 
covered, for  the  first  time  that  we  hold  that  ;  and  exult  with  tri- 
umph that  we  have  made  the  concession  !  But  then,  gentle- 
men, you  take  care  not  to  tell  your  intelligent  devotees,  that  we 
hold  to  the  tradition  of  historical  testimony  of  all  the  churches, 
ii\  Asia,  Greece,  Africa,  and  Europe  ; — and  not  in  your  ridicu- 
lous, and  exclusive  manner,  to  the  sect  of  the  Roman  church 
only  ! 

XII.  In  your  letters  you  have  more  than  once  made  emphatic 
allusions  to  the  "  Arian  Cobbler,"  and  to  "  old  women,"  and  vir- 
tuous females."  I  must,  for  want  of  room  postpone  the  objection 
of  the  '^Cobbler"  which  you  and  Mr.  Hughes,  copy  out  of  old 
Mumford  ;  and  which  you  improve,  actually  out  of  Volney.  Of 
this  in  my  next.  I  was  at  a  loss  for  some  time,  to  penetrate  the 
reason  why  you  speak  so  solemnly,  and  so  often,  and  so  affec- 
tionately about  *'old  women,"  and  the  virtuous  old  ladies."  But 
I  have  discovered  the  reason.  A  pious  man,  especially  a  Roman 
Priest,  is  always  very  grateful.  And  I  have  no  doubt  that 
you  make  these  frequent  allusions  with  a  pious  view  of  cherish- 
ing the  memory  of  good  old  Pope  Joan  ;  that  pious  and  sly  "  old 
woman"  and  "virtuous  female,"  who  contrived  to  get  a  Cardi- 
nal's hat;  and  actually  to  climb  up  into  St.  Peter's  chair. — 
"which,"  as  you  gravely  tell  us,  and  must,  therefore  all  be  true, 
"  even  angels  reverence."  You  have  proud  reasons  to  cherish 
her  memory, — good  old  soul !  And  as  pious  and  chaste  sons, 
to  speak  fondly  and  gratefully  of  such  "  old  women  ;"  and  "  such 
virtuous  females."  You  can  never  forget  the  chair  Sterrorarius  ; 
nor  the  street  of  Rome  immortalized  by  her  labours.  We  cannot 
blame  you  for  being  grateful.  Verily  I  assure  you, — and  you 
all  know  it, — it  was  not  every  Pope  that  made  such  a  present  to 
*'  Holy  Mother,"  as  Pope  Joan  did  ;  as  the  old  Roman  distich, 
composed  by  an  orthodox  monk,  has  fully  shown  :  viz. 

"  Papa  pater  patrum  peperit  papissa  papillum !  ! 

May  I  beg  Dr.  Varela  to  get  the  Notary  Public  to  translate 
this  for  us  ? 
I  find  that  I  must  pause  :  the  half  of  your  deistical  objections 


156 

I  have  here  noticed  :  the  rest  I  shall  finish  in  my  next.  I  post- 
pone the  testimony  of  the  Fathers  until  I  shall  have  got  a  few 
more  precious  morsels  from  Dr.  Varela;  whom  I  earnestly  beg 
to  go  on.  For  he  is  furnishing  me  with  one  of  the  fullest  and 
rarest  lists  of  the  contradictions  of  the  Fathers.  I  shall  certainly 
be  mortified  and  disappointed,  if  the  good  padre  shall  stop  soon. 
I  have  on  my  table  the  most  Rev.  J.  Lopez's  Epitome  of  the  Ho- 
ly Fathers,  in  three  volumes  folio.  Only  quote  fairly  and  go  on. 
I  beg  him  also  to  complete  the  list  of  the  rcorded  slanders  against 
Luther,  Calvin,  and  other  "execrated"  Reformers;  that  I  may 
have  them  all  before  me,  for  my  next  letter. 

Before  I  close,  I  will  call  the  attention  of  the  Lutheran  Church 
to  a  valuable  work  now  in  oar  city,  and  which  Professer  Haze- 
lius,  or  Professor  Schmucker,  ought  to  give  to  the  public,  in 
English.  I  allude  to  Dr.  Melchior  Nicholas's  Vindication  .of 
Martin  Luther,  published  by  Professor  WolfFlin,  of  the  College 
of  Tubingen,  A.D.  1668.  He  records  the  seven  chapters  of  slan| 
der's  against  Luther,  by  the  Jesuit  Forerus;  and  gives  a  triumphant 
refutation  of  them  every  one.  Every  thing  which  my  opponents 
copy  out  of  Mumford,  relative  to  Luther,  I  find  copied  from  Fo- 
rerus :  without  his  decency,  and  without  being  modernized  by 
vulgarity ! 

Will  Father  Levins — by  the  way, — have  the  generosity  to  cor- 
rect an  error  of  the  press,  in  the  new  edition  of  his  Letter  IV. 
"Your  attack  on  the  great  Milner  reminds  us  of  the  fable  of  the 
Jack-ass  kicking  the  dead  lion."  Correct  it  so  as  to  read — <'  the 
lion  kicking  the  dead  Jackass  I"  Then  you  will  utter  a  truth. 
For  the  immortal  M'Gavin  in  the  Glasgow  Protestant,  kicked 
him  and  killed  him,  and  hung  up  the  skin  of  this  same  Jackass, 
high  in  air,  in  front  of  the  Roman  Chapel  of  Glasgow  ! 

I  am  Gentlemen 
Your  obedient  servant  &c.  &c. 
VV.  C.  BLOWNLEE. 

Collegiate  Minister  of  the  Middle  and  North  Churches. 
New  York,  April,  IG.  1S33. 


157 
Reply  of  nrs.  roiver  and  JLivins^ 

TO  UU.  BROWN  LEE. 

No.  G. 

Though  thou  shouldst  bray  a  fool  in  a  niorttir   with  a  pcstl.v  yet   wiil  not  his   f.-oliah- 
ness  depart  from  liiin.     Frov.  xxvii,  22. 

Rev.  Sir,— The  stamp  impressed  by  nature  on  the  countless 
beings  forming  its  different  kingdoms  is  not  easily  effaced,  nay  : 
not  easily  modified-  As  an  arVist  in  the  arcana  of  the  mmtmg 
process,  it  exists  unrivalled  ;  and  it  strikes  its  dies  with  a  force 
fidelity,  and  truth  of  outline,  that  even  in  this  age  of  scientific 
intellect,  no  application  of  steam  power  can  imitate,  'i'hc  lead- 
ing features  of  character  imparted  by  it  are  always  fixed,  ^o 
matter  what  clime  may  be  visited,  or  atmosphere  breathed,  they 
seldom,  if  ever,  are  affected  by  that  modifying  change,  which, 
technically  may  be  termed — weathering. 

Illustrations  of  these  remarks    may  without   any  dificulty,  be 
discovered  in  the  brute  world  ;  they  may   be  found  in  every  man- 
dering  menagrie— There  it  will  be  seen  that  kind  and  gentle  treat- 
ment ;  that  satiety  in  the  indulgence  of  appetite,  does  not  eradi- 
cate the  propensity  to  prowl  and  prey.     The  ferocity  of  the  ani- 
mal is  still  untamed.     In  the  shew-room  and  surrounded  by  the 
most   civilized  visitors,  the  tiger  will  growl  as   savagely  as  m  his 
native  jungle — and  the  gentle  naturalist  would  as  little  incline  to 
examine  the    strength    and  symetry    of  his  molar  fangs,  though 
confined  in  an  iron  cage,  as  in  the  wild  forests  of  Siam  or  Bengal. 
In  the  civilized  woald,  also,  Rev.  Sir,  nature  in  many  instances, 
sways  with  as  irresistible  despotism  as  over  the  brute  portion  of 
the  animal  Kingdom.     However  toil  and  patience,  and  we  might 
add  gentleness,  have  sought  to  transform  native  disposition,  lher& 
are,  at  times,  out  breaks  of  propensity,  as   if  in  mockery  of  our 
best  efforts  to   produce  radical    and  melioratingchange.     But, 
unfortunately,  this  invincible  resistance  to  change  is  characteristic 
of,  not   merely  the  animal  portion    of  the    human  creature,  but 
also,  of  that  which  most  ennobles   mun— his  intellect.     Nature, 
in  many  instances,  holds  control  over   the  mind   equally  as  over 
the  body.     Subject  the  mind   lo  every   form  of  rational  culture, 
still  there  will  be  biasses  that  cannot  be  counteracted,  there  will 
be   dispositions  that  cannot  be  subdued  or  improved.     Drill  the 
dunce  in  th«  moil  rigid  rules  of  logic,— point  out  his  errors,  nnis- 
conceptions,  illogical  inferences,  and  then  m^k  him  to    establish 
his  Rule  of  Faith  by  rational  procedure  of  reasoning;— will  suc- 
ceii  attend  the  lesson  l     No,  nor  its  repetition.     Nature  at  once 


15S 

interferes,  dulness  rushes  to  the  aid  of  her  son,  surrounds  his 
intellect  with  fog  and  mist,  and  because  his  ^squinting'  vision 
cannot  peer  through  the  haze,  he  believes  himself  secure,  like 
the  bird  vi'hcn  it  hides  its  head  in  the  sands  of  the  desert. 

To  enlighten  mental  hebetued,  Rev.  Preacher,  and  ^^  gentle- 
man^'' of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church,  is  an  irksome  and  wearisome 
task.  When  nature  opposes  obstacles,  probably  insurmountable, 
the  soil  is  cheerless  which  is  wasted  in  the  drudgery.  When 
you  greeted  us  with  a  "  Challenge"  we  thought  a  scholar,  a  logi- 
cian, a  theologian  would  have  been  our  antagonist.  We  indulg- 
ed the  hope,  that  trick,  evasion,  and  subterfuge  would  have  been 
shunned  ;  that  something  in  the  form  of  manly  and  honorable 
argument  would  have  been  used  by  you  ; — that  your  Rule  of 
Faith — the  real  subject  of  discussion — would  not  merely  have 
been  defined,  but  proved  and  defended.  But,  how  idly,  and 
wantonly  has  hope  cheated  us  !  Are  we  to  blame  because 
duped  ? — Censure  it  is  hoped  has  not  been  incurred.  Who, 
not  gifted  with  prophetic  vision,  could  have  supposed  a  teacher 
in  Israel,  a  Preacher  in  the  Middle  Dutch  Church,  a  familiar 
with  the  interior  spirit,  an  erudite  able  to  interpret  every  crabled 
idion  in  the  "  Hebrew  and  Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  a  "g"en- 
tlemah'^  who  arrogates  to  himself  the  sole  right  to  be  the 
*^  Writer"^  to  his  flock,  and  the  director  of  ^^  virtuous  ladies*^ 
who  could  have  supposed  he  would  have  shrunk  from  the  logical 
probation  and  defence  of  a  cause  to  which  he  had  invited 
discussion  !  Though  argument  have  not  been  given,  and  far  as 
just  inference  can  guide  our  judgment,  will  not  be  adduced, 
still  we  are  blameless,  for  even  emprie  testimony  that  his  cranial 
protuberances  of  casuality  or  cognoscibility  were  developed  was 
iiept  a  secret  from  us  by  his  "  virtuous  ladies."  Our  knowledge 
of  his  intellectual  powers  is  the  induction  of  personal  experience ; 
and  this  induction,  were  it  expressed  could  not  be  conveyed  in 
the  phrases  of  compliment.  It  is  left  to  the  logical  perception 
of  the  Doctor's  '*  judge  and  jury,"  his  ''  chrislian  public"  to  de- 
rive it  from  the  Scripture  heading  to  our  present  letter — "  though 
thou  shouldst  bay  a  fool  in  a  mortar,  yet  will  not  his  foolishness 
depart  from  him." 

Had  you  Rev.  Preacher,  when  you  proclaimed  your  challenge^ 
but  in  a  slight  degree  admitted  the  possession  of  those  unenvi- 
able qualities  of  mind  which  unprejudiced  judgment  will  infer 
from  your  letters,  you  should  not  have  numbered  us  among 
your  controversial  antagonists.  Had  you  informed  us  that  every 
thing  having  the  appearance  of  logical  order  dependency  interfer- 
ed with  the  equilibrium  of  your  nervous  quietude;  that  nature  had 
been  a  niggard  in  conferring  certain  gifts;  that  you  hated  the 


159 

galley-slave  penalty  which  chained  you  lo  the  discussion  of  one 
subject  at  a  time ;  that  like  a  giddy  insect  on  the  wing,  you 
would  prefer  a  wild  flight  through  the  boundless  regions  of  air  j 
that  you  would  introduce  a  thousand  irrelevant  topics,  ^^pleasant 
jokes,  virtuous  ladies,  Paddy's  copper  kettle,  mail  bag  carrier," 
and  *'  Fope  Joan"  that  in  the  place  of  argument  you  would  im- 
molate Truth  to  the  prejudice  and  low  passions  of  the  ig- 
norant, bigoted,  and  fanatical  of  your  sect,  and  then  insist 
against  every  testimony  of  common  sense;  that  you  had  proved 
infallibly  your  rule  of  faith,  and  the  Bible  to  be  the  word  of 
God,  we  tell  you  had  candour  dictated  this  admission,  you 
might  still  have  enjoyed  the  high  opinion  of  your  flock,  your 
t>ir/i/0U5  ladies,  and  your  christian  public;  you  might  still,  for 
aught  it  would  affect  us,  have  been  the  Grand  Lama  of  the 
Middle  Dutch  Church,  and  the  interpreter  of  the  "  Hebrew  and 
the  Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  for  your  challenge  would  not 
have  been  honored  by  our  acceptance,  we  should  have  referred 
you  to  the  philosophy  conveyed  in  the  words  of  Scripture, 
*'  though  thou  shouldst  bray  a  fool  in  a  mortar  with  a  pestle,  yet 
will  not  his  foolishness  depart  from  him  !  !  !" 

Ere  we  enter  on  the  matter  of  your  last  letter,  Rev.  Preacher, 
which  in  any  sense,  merits  attention,  the  answer  in  your  letter 
No.  5.  to  our  question,  "  how  do  you  know  the  Bible  to  be  the 
word  of  God,"  requires  a  brief  notice.  This  answer  embraced 
nothing  in  the  form  of  reasoning, — nothing  but  a  series  of  asser~ 
tions.  Its  assertions  were  returned  to  you  in  the  order  of  six- 
teen propositions.  Why  was  your  answer  given  under  this  form? 
Did  you,  in  truth,  suppose  it  an  answer  9  If  you  did,  your  logi- 
cal perception  of  what  should  constitute  proof  is  strangely  ob- 
tuse ; — its  character  cannot  be  better  expressed,  than  by  your 
own  term — "  squinting."  Did  you  suppose  it  would  satisfy  the 
Members  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church  7  Then  they  are  easily 
gulled,  and  cannot  appreciate  that  process  of  reasoning,  which 
would  establish  a  solid  foundation  for  what  Calvinists  so  fre- 
quently and  fondly  name  rational  religion.  Did  you  suppose 
it  would  have  been  admitted  by  us  as  establishing  the  Bible  to 
be  the  word  of  God  9  If  you  did,  the  sixteen  propositions  have 
furnished  another  form  of  testimony.  But  had  this  logical  answer 
been  permitted  to  pass  unnoticed,  you  would  have  claimed  the 
merit  of  an  extraordinary  achievement,  your  admirers  would  have 
cheered  you  with  hymns  and  canticles  of  victory  ; — Saul  and 
his  thousands,  David  and  his  ten  thousands,  would  have  sunk 
into  utter  significance,  while  the  name  of  Preacher  Brownlee 
would  have  been  the  exulting  theme  of  every  predestined  tongue. 
We  wish  however,  to  direct  the  attention  of  our  readers  to  th« 


160 

precise  aim  of  these  remarks.  Whether  the  Preacher's  answer 
to  our  first  query  had  or  had  not  been  noticed  by  us,  could  not 
have  effected  any  change  in  its  intrinsic  worth — it  could  not  have 
become  either  weaker  or  stronger. — As  it  exists  nothing  can  be 
more  infirm  or  puerile.  Yet,  had  it  not  been  noticed,  this  infirm  and 
puerile  answer  would  hnve  been  received  by  the  Doctor's  "chris- 
tian public"  as  an  infallible  proof  that  the  Bible  is  the  Word  of 
God.  This  would  have  been  received  by  those  who  exult  in  the 
proud  privileges  of  private  reason,  by  those  who  vaunt  the  glorious 
liberties  of  conscience,  secured  by  Preacher  Brownlee's  "ever 
blessed  Reformation,"  as  a  sufficient  foundation  for  an  article 
of  faith, — as  on  unyielded  basis  for  rational  religion  ! 

Your  answer  to  our  query  of  *'  infinite  importance."  How  do 
you  know  the  Bible  to  be  the  word  of  God  ^  is  now,  it  is  pre- 
sumed in  that  form  which  admits  of  no  future  amendment.  It 
has,  of  course,  passed  through  that  process  termed  *'  Protestant 
lesson  and  logic  ;"  and  is  now  secure  in  an  invulnerable  panoply. 
It  is  now  solid  as  the  foundations  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church, 
— immovable  as  a  cedar  of  Lebanon  rifled  in  the  rock.  It  is 
now  a  Jixed  basis  for  an  article  of  faith.  Mark  the  import  of 
our  wordsj — and  mark  your  logical  answers  to  the  sixteen  pro- 
positions. 

1st.  Question.  How  do  you  know  the  Bible  to  be  the  Word 
of  God  1 

JJnswer.  "  I  know  it  from  the  external  evidence  o^  prophecy ^ 
which  has  been,  and  is  noiu,  fulfilling  before  our  eyes;  Seethe 
proof  in  Bishop  Newton  on  the  prophecies  !" 

This,  then,  Rev.  Sir,  is  the  first  of  those  answers,  which,  in 
your  last  letter,  you  affirm  to  be  the  *'/ii//  and  irresistible  moral 
evidence  on  which  you  believe  the  Bible  to  be  the  word  of  God  !" 
We  would,  did  you  respect  the  sacred  station  you  occupy,  did 
your  letters  furnish  even  the  slightest  proof  that  you  possess  the 
learning  and  honor  this  station  supposes,  we  would  address  you 
in  terms  of  sincere  esteem.  Though  differing  in  creed,  we 
would,  at  once,  admit  you  "claims  to  be  a  gentleman'^  and  a 
scholar ;  nay  if  you  yearned  for  the  compliment,  the  '  Writer*  of 
the  Middle  Dutch  church.  But,  when  neither  the  learning  nor 
the  research  of  the  sciiolar  is  displayed,  when  the  adherence  to 
truth  and  hatred  of  misrepresentation  characteristic  of  a  minis- 
ter of  religion  is  not  shewn,  when  the  courteousness  and  urbani- 
ty bespeaking  the  gentleman  are  not  exhibited,  to  be  squeamish 
in  the  application  of  pro})er  and  appropriate  terms  to  designate 
your  merit,  would  be  a  test  of  infirm  and  misplaced  judgment. 
The  '*  phrase  germane  to  the  matter"  is  a  proper  maxim.  Scruti- 
nize your  first  answer  in   your  last  letter^  and  tell  us  in  the  spirit 


11)1 

of  candor,  without  the  Calvincity  of  subterfuge  of  evasion,  do 
you  consider  it  logical  '?  Is  it  worthy  of  your  character  as  a 
Calvinistic  theologue  '.'  Would  it  confer  merit  on  a  school-boy  t*^ 
We  ask  you,  how  do  you  know  the  Bible  to  be  the  word  of  God  '? 
And  your  answer  is,  "  I  know  it  on  the  external  evidence  of 
prophecy,  which  has  been,  and  is  now,  fulfilling  before  our  eyes, 
sec  the  proof  in  Bishop  Newton  on  the  prophecies  "  Where  is 
the  form  of  proof  in  this  sapient  answer  ?  There  is  nothing  but 
assertion,  and  reference  to  Bishop  Newton, — and,  on  this,  for- 
sooth, you  **/jooA:"  your  infallible  conclusion — the  Bible  is  the 
word  of  God  !  This  is,  really,  utterly,  and  disgracefully  puerile, 
contemptible,  farcical.  Yet,  this  is  a  preacher's  answer  in  de- 
fence of  his  Rule  of  Faith  !  This  is  the  answer  of  a  judge  in 
Israel,  who  can  when  he  lists,  evoke  the  interior  spirit,  and  in- 
terpret the  "  Hebrew  and  Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost !"  Again 
you  are  referred  to  the  geometrical  illustration  given  in  our  last 
letter.  You  wish  to  ascertain  whether  a  schoolboy  is  acquaint- 
ed with  the  sixth  book  of  Euclid.  You  select  a  preposition ; 
and  the  boy,  to  prove  his  knowledge,  merely  indicates  data  of 
proof  from  previous  propositions,  and  finally,  imitating  your 
own  example,  tells  you  to  see  Euclid  I  Will  you  affirm.  Rev. 
and  logical  preacher,  this  is  the  sound  from  of  geometrical  de- 
monstration? Why  this,  in  no  sense,  is  proof.  Who  will  admit 
it.  In  a  similar  manner,  your  answer  to  our  query  is  nothing 
but  assertion  and  reference  to  Bishop  Newton.  Yet  this  is  the 
Q,.  E.  D.  of  your  interior  spirit,  and  your  logical  basis  for  an 
article  of  faith.  How  will  John  Calvin  greet  you  on  the 
misty  side  of  the  River  Styx.  Your  proofs  nmo  are  typical  of 
what  your  shade  will  he  then.  Again  your  opponents  say, — 
prove  your  answers  logical  Doctor. 

The  Preacher's  second  answer  is,  I  know  the  Bible  to  bo  the 
word  of  God  from  the  "  external  evidence  of  miracles  lorought 
by  the  inspired  writers,  and  which  were  continued  down  to  the 
time  of  St.  Austin,  who  saw  some  wrought."  Here  there  is  no 
proof, — again  nothing  but  assertion.  There  is,  however,  some 
novel  information  conveyed  in  this  answer  of  the  Doctor's  inte- 
rior spirit.  He  says  '•  the  miracles  wrought  by  the  inspired  wri- 
ters were  continued  down  to  the  time  of  St.  Austin,  and  that  he 
saw  some  of  them  wrought .'"  Condescend  to  inform  us,  critical 
Preacher,  who  was  the  inspired  writer  living  '  at  the  time  of  St. 
Austin,'  and  what  were  the  miracles  performed  by  him  ?  Dear 
Doctor  provide  for  the  monopoly  of  this  inspired  discovery  by 
securing  your  right  at  the  patent  office.  Truly,  we  live  in  the 
age  of  intellect.  Please,  also,  to  inform  us  what  miracles  were 
performed  by  St.  Luke,  St.  Matthew,  St.  Judc.  Did  Solomon 
perform  miracles  9 

No.  11.— 21, 


16S 

Sd:  Prop.  I  know  it  from  its  external  evidence  of  the  gift  of 
tongues. 

The  Preachefs  proof.  ''  1  know  it  from  the  gift  of  tongues, 
by  which  all  nations  heard  the  gospel  in  their  own  native  lan- 
guage." Here  is  nothing  but  a  repetition  of  his  first  assertions. 
As  yet  no  proof. 

4th.  Prop.  I  know  it  from  its  internal  evidence,  namely,  its 
majesty. 

The  Preacher^ s proof .  '^  I  know  it  from  its  majesty  which  every 
christian,  and  every  reasonable  man  may  feel  and  see  contrasted 
on  every  page  contrasted  with  every  human  writer."  Nothing 
here  but  assertion, — no  proof.  If  you  be  a  "reasonable  man," 
excellent  Doctor,  inform  us  how  you  "  feel  and  see  its  majesty  in 
every  page,  contrasted  with  every  human  writer."  Favor  us  with 
glimmer  from  your  interior  spirit  on  this  topic.  We  wish  for  a 
spice  of  your  literary  criticism. 

^th.  Prop.  I  knew  it  from  its  purity. 

The  Preachefs  proof.  "  I  know  it  from  its  purity  which  no 
man  could  have  conceived  or  framed  in  his  writings  "  Again 
the  same  meagre  assertion  with  the  addition  of  another  proposi- 
tion without  proof, — or  the  semblance  of  proof. 

To  iterate  the  remaining  propositions  for  which  proof  was 
required,  and  for  which  proof  has  not  been  given  in  preacher 
Brownlee's  last  letter,  would  be  tedious  and  irksome  to  our  rea- 
ders. Neither  singly  nor  collectively  is  there  the  shadow  of 
proof;  and,  consequently,  the  Doctor's  Protestant  Rule  of  Faith 
is  yet  fettered  to  a  most  important  and  stubborn,  nay,  an  insuper- 
able difficulty — is  the  Bible  the  Word  of  G^d  ?  But,  mark,  the 
obtuseness  of  the  Preacher's  intellect— rthis  repetition  of  proof- 
less assertions,  this  ^'crambe  repetita,"  "this  crambe  his  cocta," 
this  abortion  of  the  palsied  brain,  is  honored  by  its  delighted 
and  inspired  parent  with  the  compliment — "  a  full  and  irresisti- 
ble moral  evidence!"  Can  any  thing  more  demonstrative  of 
an  understanding  under  a  melancholy  visitation  be  adduced. 
Had  Old  Lear  met  the  Preacher  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church 
in  the  forest  instead  of  Mad  Tom,  he  would  have  dubbed  him 
his  philosopher.  In  a  former  letter  fi-om  the  "gentlemen"  an 
allusion  was  made  to  a  visit  to  the  Philadelphia  Lunatic  Asylum. 
A  second  might  be  productive  of  some  benefit.  JVaviget  An- 
ticyram,  let  him  be  shipped  to  Anticyra  ivas  the  consoling  advice 
of  Horace  to  gentlemen  laboring  under  certain  mental  aberra- 
tions, and  restricted  to  regimen  of  hellebore.  Even  Old  Plau- 
tus  sanctions  the  treatment. 

"•'  helleborum  his  hominibus  opus  Cst." 

Throughout  the  tedious  and  sinuous  course   of  your  polemic 


163 

letters,  Rev.  Sir,  you  exhibit  a  strange  bias  to  low  joke  and  vul- 
gar story.  The  indulgence  in  this  species  ot  probation  and  de- 
fence is  not  indicative  of  cultured  or  pure  mind.  Ft  is  a  proof  ©f 
propensities  not  honourable  to  your  character  as  a  minister  of 
religion  ;  it  cannot  confer  dignity  on  your  character  as  a  man  ; — 
nor  is  it  a  proof  of  the  possession  of  wisdom.  This  last  quali- 
fication may,  however  be  excused,  for   the  poet  says, — 

"  Gentle  dulness  ever  loves  a  joke." 

But  while  you  indulge  in  vulgar  bias  and  low  propensities, 
where,  is  your  Rule  of  Faith.  This  is  abandoned  to  the  peltings 
of  your  antagonists, — and  it  now  cries  aloud  for  mercy.  Mark 
how  this  gentle  attribute  is  dispensed,  and  attend  to  the  forlorn 
state  of  your  Rule. 

When  asked  to  prove  tlie  inspiration  of  the  Bible,  you  hav@ 
recourse  to  authority.  "  The  authors  of  each  of  the  books," 
says  the  Doctor,  *'  first  gave  evidence  before  the  church,  by 
working  miracles  and  prophecying  and  speaking  tongues,  that 
they  were  the  accredited  messengeis  of  God."  Without  this 
evidence  the  Doctor  would  not  believe  the  Scriptures  to  be  in- 
spired. But  this  evidence  he  has  from  the  testimony  of  the 
church ;  therefore,  without  the  testimony  of  the  church  he  could 
not  believe  in  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  but  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  scriptures  is  an  article  of  Christian  belief;  and 
to  this  belief  the  Doctor  could  not  be  brought  by  the 
Scriptures  alone.  Therefore,  the  Scriptures  alone,  are  not 
a  sufficient  rule  of  faith. — Q.  E.  D.  We  refer  you  to  your 
letter  No.  2,  in  which  you  say,  the  only  rule  of  faith 
and  final  judge  of  controversy,  with  every  Protestant,  is  the  Holy 
Spirit  speaking  to  us  in  the  written  word  of  God,  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, containing  all  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  and  of  the. 
New."  Compare  this  prior  definition  of  your  rule  with  what 
you  have  stated  in  your  last,  viz:  "  the  Protestant  church  pro- 
claims'  THAT  .E'ER  RULE  IS     THE  WORD  OF  GoD."       HcrC  yOU  liaVC 

left  out  the  word  only,  and  we  unhesitatingly  say,  that  this  omis- 
sion bespeaks  a  consciousness  of  defeat.  We,  Rev.  Sir,  admit 
the  Scriptures  as  our  rule  of  faith,  but  not  as  our  only  rule  of 
faith.  You  have  asserted  "  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  final  judge 
of  controversy  with  every  Protestant,  is  the  Holy  Spirit  speak- 
ing to  us  in  the  written  word  of  the  Old  Testament  and  of  the 
New,"  but  finding  you  could  not  prove  this  to  be  the  only  rule 
of  faith  established  by  Christ,  you  tell  us  with  all  the  confidence 
*of  logical  and  theological  consistency,  that  the  protestant  church 
"  proclaims  that  her  rulo'is  the  word  of  God."  What  will  th« 
"  christian  public"  think  of  the  following  specimen  of  your 
^'  Protestant  lesson  and  logic  9"  In  your  answer  to  our  first  ques- 
tion, **  How  do  you  know  the  Bible  to  be  the   word  of  God*?" 


164 

you  say,  *'  we  are  not  so  weak  and  bigoted  as  to  believe  it  (to  be 
the  word  of  God)  merely  on  the  church's  tradition;"  and  in  the 
same  breath,  the  consistent  and  learned  Dr.  Brownlee  informs 
us,  that  we  know  which  books  were  written  by  Divine  inspiration 
in  the  following  satisfactory  manner.  The  authors  of  each  of 
the  books  of  the  Holy  Scripture  first  gave  evidence  before  the 
church,  by  working-  miracles  and  prophecying  and  speaking 
tongues,  that  they  were  the  accredited  messengers  of  God. — This 
being  settled  they  wrote  those  books  which  bear  their  names  at 
the  command  of  God.  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord"  was  the  evidence 
that  they  were  enjoined  to  speak  and  write,  (see  Hos.  viii.  12. — 
John  XX.  31.— Rom.  xv.  4— 2.  Tim  iii.  16.— Rev.  i.  11.,  &c. 
Also  the  beginning  of  each  of  Paul's  epistles.")  Now  it  is  self- 
evident,  that  the  entire  force  of  this  reasoning  rests  on  the  testi- 
mony of  the  church.  Without  this  testimony,  will  the  text  from 
Hosea  prove,  that  the  Gospel  of  St.  Luke  is  divinely  inspired  ^ 
The  text  runs  thus  "  I  have  written  to  him  the  great  things  of 
my  law,  but  they  were  counted  as  a  strange  thing." — Hos.  viii. 
12.  Therefore  the  gospel  of  St.  Luke  is  inspired  !  Can  this, 
Rev.  Sir,  be  ^'Protestant  lesson  and  logic*?"  Let  us  try  your 
next  text,  John  xx.  31.  ^'  But  these  are  written  that  ye  might 
believe,  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  and  that  believ- 
ing ye  might  have  life  through  his  name ;"  therefore,  the  gospel 
of  St.  Luke  is  divinely  inspired  !  Worse  and  worse,  Rev.  Doc- 
tor. Now  for  your  next  satisfactory  text.  Rom.  xv.  4,  "  For 
whatsoever  things  were  written  aforetime  were  written  for  our 
learning,  that  we  through  patience,  and  comfort  of  the  Scrip- 
tures might  have  hope."  Therefore  the  gospel  according  to 
St.  Luke  is  the  word  of  God  !  Your  Protestant  lesson  and  logic, 
may  admit  these  conclusions  as  legitimate,  but  will  the  "christian 
public"  will  common  sense  !■  We  think  not,  Rev.  Sir,  and  we 
also  think,  your  christian  public  will  readily  admit  that  your 
extravagant  assertions,  "argue  either  sheer  knavery  or  a  de- 
rangement in  the  moral  faculty." 

Yet  you  admit  the  interpretation  of  St.  Luke's  gospel.  Will 
you  favor  us  with  a  text  which  says  this  gospel  is  inspired  *? 
We  defy  you  to  produce  this  text.  On  what  motive  is  it  in- 
spired ?  Your  reason  for  believing  the  inspiration  of  this  book 
as  well  as  that  of  all  the  others,  is  thus  given  by  yourself.  "  The 
authors  of  the  books  of  the  Holy  scriptures  first  gave  evidence 
before  the  Church,  by  working  miracles  and  prophecying  and 
speaking  tongues,  that  they  were  the  accredited  messengers  of 
God.  This  being  settled,  they  wrote  the  books,  which  bear  their 
names,  at  the  command  of  God."  But  was  not  Barnabas,  "  an 
accredited  messenger  of  God  ?"  Was  not  Barnabas  full  of  faith 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ^     See  the  Uth  chap,  of  the  Acts.  v.  24. 


See  also  14  c.  ibid.  v.  13.     Did  not  Barnabas  wrilo  an  epistle  9 
That  he  did,  you  have  "  full  and  irresistible  moral  evidence  ;" 
why  not  believe  the  epistle  to  be  tlie  word  ot'dod  ']     Who  tells 
you  that  tliis  epistle  is  not  inspired  'I     Have  the  kindness  to  favor 
the  christian  public  with  an  answer  to  these  queries.     We  admit, 
Rev.  Sir,  the  autlienticity  of  St.  Luke's  gospel.      We  admit  that 
it  is  his  production.     Yet  how  do  we  arrive  at  the  fact  of  its  inspi- 
ration 9  Does  St-  Luke  say  that  he  wrote  from  inspiration  !  To  all 
appearance,  ho  says  the  contrary,  "  It  seemed  good  to  me  also, 
having  diligently  attained  to  ail  things  from  the  beginning  to 
write  to  the,  in  order,  most  excellant  Theophilus."     Luke  c.  L 
V.  3.      Here  St.  Luke  speaks  of  his  own  diligence  and  not  of  his 
inspiration.     Has  St.  Luke  performed  any  miracles  to  prove  his 
inspiration.     Where  is  it  recorded  that  he  has  !     How  then  do 
we  know  the  fact  of  the  inspiration  of  this  gospel  *?     We  know 
it  from  the  Catholic  Church  alone,  and  we  defy  you  to  produce 
any  other  authority  for  your  belief.     Luther  declares  himself  that 
if  he  and  his  associates  had  not  received  the  word  of  God,  from 
the  Catholic  Church,  they  should  have  known  nothing  about  it. 
See  Luth.  Com.  in  Joan,  c.  16.     We  now  see  that  you  reject  the 
inspiration  of  the  epistle  of  St.  Barnabas,  on  the  authority  of  the 
Catholic  Church  ;  you  admit  the  inspiration  of  the  gospel  of  St. 
Luke  on  the  same  authority,  and  you  have  the  assurance  to  tell 
us,  ^'  We  are  not  so  weak  and  bigoted  and  foolish,  as  to  believe 
it,  merely  on  the  Church's  tradition  !  !  !"     This  "mere  carrier 
of  the  mail  bag"  as  you  impiously  call  the  Church  of  Christ,  is 
authority  with  you  for  rejecting  as  inspired  scripture,  the  writings 
of  one  who  was  not  an  Apostle,  St.  Luke  :  and  this  authority, 
which  you  pretend  to  revere  on  this  all  important  point,  you  re- 
ject with  contempt,  when  there  is  question  of  ascertaining  its 
meaning.     We  have  already  told  you,  on  the  authority  of  Calmet 
and  others,  that  in  the  first  ages  of  the  church,  the  number  of 
false  gospels  was  great.     Those  gospels  were  condemned  and 
proscribed  by  the  church.     This  the  church  could  not  do  with- 
out forming  a  true  estimate  of  their  sense  ;  neither  could  she  have 
transmitted  to  us  the  genuine  gospels  without  being  capable  of 
judging  of  their  meaning.     Hence  to  receive  from  the  hands  of 
the  church,  the  book  of  the  gospel,  and  to  ascribe  to  it  a  false 
meaning  which  the  church  reprobates,  is  a  contradiction. 

If  you  preach  what  is  contrary  to  the  gospel,  you  preach  a  false 
gospel,  and  if  what  you  thus  preach  be. presented  to  the  Catholic 
Church,  she  will  condemn  it  as  false  gospel,  and  if  you  do  not 
obey  her,  she  will  cut  you  off  as  a  "heathen  and  a  publican." 
A  fig  for  the  Catholic  church  says  Dr.  Brownleo  ; — she  is  nothing 
but  the  mere  "  carrier  of  the  mail  bag."     I  laugh  at  her  as 


166 

heartily  as  I  would  at  the  Post  boy,  who  should  gravely  say  to 
the  community  "  it  is  well  known  that  the  general  government 
has  committed  to  me  the  one  line,  of  carrying  the  precious  con- 
tents of  this  mail  bag.  Tiierefore  in  virtue  of  the  right  of  being 
one  carrier,  I  claim  the  right  of  being  all  the  carriers  ;  and  I 
claim  also  the  right  to  keep  in  my  power,  all  the  contents  of  this 
mail,  and  all  the  other  mails,  and  to  give  my  own  personal  expla- 
nation of  every  letter  in  it."  Well  said  Doctor.  So  then  the  au- 
thority of  the  church  of  Christ,  on  which  Preacher  Brownlee 
believes  the  scriptures  to  be  divinely  inspired,  is  no  more  than 
that  of  the  mail  boy,  who  should  presume  to  explain  the  letters 
entrusted  to  him  !  !  !  Is  this  "  knavery  or  is  it  a  derangement  of 
the  moral  faculty  '?"  After  this  can  you  have  the  madness,  to 
say  that  your  faith  is  divine.     Credat  Judeus. 

"  The  Protestant  church,  says  Dr.  Brownlee,  proclaims  that 
her  rule  is  the  word  of  God."  Now,  Doctor,  tell  us  where  the 
rule  of  the*Protestant  church  informs  us  that  the  Bible  contains 
the  whole  word  of  God.  You  say  it  does.  We  call  for  your 
proof.  Your  rule  tells  us  in  many  places,  that  many  books  were 
lost.  Quote  one  text  to  prove,  if  you  can,  that  the  books  al- 
luded to  as  lost,  were  not  inspired.  On  what  evidence  do  you 
say  that  they  were  not  inspired  ?  There  is  not  a  text  of  Scrip- 
ture that  tells  you  they  were  not.  But  you  know  they  were  not 
inspired,  and  how  do  you  know  it,  "  by  the  same  evidence,  which 
establishes  the  fact  of  the  inspiration  of  the  books  we  have. 
There  are  no  inspired  books  lost."  Where  does  the  Catholic 
Church  tell  you,  that  the  books  referred  to  as  lost  were  not  in- 
spired ']  Would  St.  Matthew,  think  you,  refer  the  Jews  to  un- 
inspired prophecies,  for  proof  that  Christ  was  the  Messiah  fore- 
told by  the  prophets  '^  It  was  spoken  by  the  prophets,  ^'  He  shall 
be  called  a  Nazarene" — Math.  v.  ii.  v.  23.  The  books  of  the 
prophets,  wherein  Christ  was  called  a  Nazarene  have  perished, 
for  he  is  not  called  a  Nazarene  in  all  the  prophetical  books  which 
we  have.  We  believe.  Rev.  Sir.  that  St.  Chrysostom,  was  nearer 
to  the  truth  than  you,  when  in  his  9th  Homil,  in  Matth.  he  says, 
*'  Many  of  the  prophetical  monuments  have  perished."  St. 
Justin  against  Tryphon,  tells  us  that  the  Jews  destroyed  many 
books  of  the  Old  Testament.  Theodoret  informs  us,  that  the 
books  of  Kings  as  we  now  have  them,  were  compiled  from  works 
written  by  ancient  prophets — Vide.Theod.  in  lib.  2  Reg.  Their 
works  are  called  in  Scripture  diure  tjajamin.  In  the  Book  of 
Kings,  c.  xi.  v.  41,  we  read,  "  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Solomon, 
are  written  in  his  history."  Such  reading  are  frequent  in  the 
book  of  Kings  and  Chronicles,  and  intimate  that  these  books 
are  mere  abstracts  from  the  more  ancient  monuments..     You  may 


167 

say  that  the  ancient  annals  were  not  inspired.  Joscphus  will 
tell  you  the  contrary  ;  in  his  second  book  against  Appion,  lie  says 
that  inspired  men  alone  were  allowed  to  write  the  monuments 
to  which  we  allude.  Shame  then  on  the  cliristian  divine  who 
calls  such  books  *'  legends,"  and  who  asserts  that  tiiey  were  re- 
ferred to  in  the  same  way,  that  St.  Paul  referred  to  the  heathen 
poets.  You  say  that  none  of  the  inspired  writers  called  them 
"scripture."  Do  any  of  the  inspired  writers  say  they  are  not 
"scripture?  Here  then  you  strut  into  court  with  a  roll  of 
parchment  in  your  hand.  The  Judge  asks  what  that  roll  is.  You 
say  it  is  your  only  rule  of  faith.  It  is  examined.  Many  books 
are  referred  to  which  are  not  in  it.  The  Judge  says  it  is  not 
complete.  You  say  it  is.  The  Judge  says  that  your  only  rule 
of  faith  tells  him  it  is  not.  "Oh,  but  these  books  are  not  in- 
spired." The  Judge  asks  where  does  your  only  rule  of  faith 
say  they  are  not.  The  Doctor  is  silent,  and  sneaks  out  of  court, 
fully  convinced  that  the  scriptures  which  he  has,  can  never  be 
proved  a  full,  and  sufficient  rule  of  faith,  and  the  judge  pro- 
nounces all  Dr.  Brownlee's  argument  a  "  nihil  dicit." 

How  can  you  prove  that  the  scriptures  alone  are  a  sufficient 
rule?  Ans.  "  By  the  strongest  and  purest  testimony  that  can 
exist:  namely,  the  testimony  of  Almighty  God.  And  bold  and 
unblushing  must  the  Christian  Deist  be  who  shall  dare  to  give 
the  lie  to  the  Almighty."  We  admit  that  it  would  be  horrible 
in  the  extreme  to  give  "the  lie  to  the  Almighty."  •  But  what  are 
we  to  think  of  the  man,  who  libels,  the  Almighty  by  pertina- 
ciously asserting  in  the  faceof  the  public  that  the  Almighty  estab- 
lished as  the  only  rule  of  faith,  that  which  common  sense  alone  tells 
us  could  not  be  the  only  rule  of  faith.  The  inspiration  and  ca- 
noncity  of  the  scriptures  are  articles  of  faith.  These  articles 
cannot  be  proved  by  the  scriptures  alone ;  therefore  the  scrip- 
tures alone  are  not  the  only  rule  of  faith.  Again,  God  wishes 
all  men  to  believe,  but  all  men  cannot  be  led  to  the  christian 
faith  by  means  of  the  scriptures  alone, ^  for  all  men  cannot  read 
the  scriptures,  and  God  never  commanded  all  men  to  learn  to 
read.  Therefore,  God  never  gave  the  scriptures  to  all  men  as 
their  only  rule  of  faith.  We  shall  now  see  how  the  scriptures 
alone  are  proved  to  be  a  sufficient  rule  of  faith.  You  quote 
Psalm  lix  :  "The  law  of  the  Lord  is  perfect,  converting  the 
soul."  The  whole  Psalm  cxix,  and  particularly  these  r  "  Through 
thy  precepts  I  get  understanding,"  ^-c.  Now  will  any  man  of 
common  sense  say  that  these  quotations  prove  your  point,  name- 
ly, that  the  scriptures  alone  are  a  sufficient  rule  of  faith,  or 
that  Christ  established  them  as  the  only  rule  of  faith  9  We 
must  repeat,  Rev.  Sir,  if  the  scriptures  cannot  prove  their  own 


168 

inspirfltion  and  canoncity,  then  it  is  obvious  that  they  are  not  and 
cannot  be  considered  as  a  sufficient  rule  of  faith.  But  the 
scriptures  cannot  proi'e  their  own  inspiration,  their  integrity, 
or  veracity.  Ergo  Dr.  Brownlec's  Protestant  lesson  and  logic 
lead  him  into  the  grossest  absurdity,  and  exhibit  him  to  the 
public  as  a  defeated  man  ! 

"  The  priesthood."  says  Dr.  Brownlee.  "  are  an  aristocracy  of 
an  awful  order;  they  are  in  fact  every  thing  and  nothing." 
Hence  the  terms  in  the  Priests  letters,  "  the  poor  -ignorant  peo- 
ple." "  Strange  to  think  that  the  Redeemer  should  require  such 
to  pick  out  their  religion  from  the  Scriptures  I"  What  answer 
have  you  given,  sir,  to  this  argument  deduced  from  the  "  igno- 
rance" of  the  great  majority  of  mankind'?  The  priests  told  you, 
that  our  Saviour  knew  that  the  great  majority  of  those,  whom  he 
came  to  call  to  his  faith,  would  be  ignorant  of  even  the  very  ru- 
diments of  learning,  and  that,  therefore,  he  could  not  have  given 
them  as  their  only  rule  of  faith,  a  book  which  they  could  not 
use.  Dr.  Brownlee's  answer  is  truly  characteristic  :  "  They  (the 
Priests)  not  only  brutalize  the  laity,  but  they  also  insult  them." 
"The  laity  shall  not  have  the  right  to  hear  what  God  says  to 
them,  without  a  Priests  written  license."  Therefore,  the  Scrip- 
tures alone  are  a  sufficient  rule  of  faith,  and  the  only  rule  of  faith 
instituted  by  Christ.  Another  specimen  of  the  Doctor's  Protest- 
ant lesson  and  logic. 

We  have  waited  with  a'nxiety  for  what  the  Doctor  deems  to 
be  the  prominent  feature  of  our  logic,  the  "vicious  circle"  The 
circular  attitude  of  "  Holy  Mother"  is  precisely  like  the  follow- 
ing :  "  A  certain  estate  is  in  chancery  ;  a  female  of  rather  suspi- 
cious character,  with  a  kw  characteristic  attendants,  not  a  whit 
holier  than  they  should  be,  appears  in  court  with  a  parchment 
roll  in  her  hand,  she  claims  the  property  on  the  evidence  of  this 
parchment  roll.  Who  are  you,  says  the  court?  Whence  is  this 
rolH  Answer  :  "  My  lips  certify  that  will^  and  that  will  certifies 
me  ;"  and  this  you  say,  is  the  literal  argument  of  the  Romish 
Priests.  The  Roman  Priests,  Rev.  Preacher  tell  the  whole  world, 
that  Christ  never  gave  the  Scriptures  to  man  as  his  only  rule  of 
faith,  and  why?  because  the  >Scriptures  alone  could  not  prove 
their  own  authenticity  of  inspiration.  They  tell  you,  and  you 
are  obliged  to  admit  the  fact,  to  your  shame  and  confusion,  that 
the  inspiration,  and  integrity,  and  veracity  of  the  Holy  Scriptures 
cannot  be  proved,  but  by  the  testimony  of  the  Christian  church. 
This  church,  established  by  miracles,  comes  into  court,  without 
spot  or  wrinkle,  with  the  Testament  of  her  divine  spouse.  It  is 
readily  admitted  to  be  genuine  ;  its  contents  are  duly  examined, 
and  behold  this  document,  already  proved  and  admitted  to  be 


169 

genuine,  says  :  "That  Christ  promised  to  be  with  his  church  t^ 
the  end  of  the  world."  "That  he  would  send  her  the  Ho'y 
Ghost  to  teach  her  all  truth  ;"  she  is  called  "  the  pillar  and  t'le 
ground  of  truth,"  and  this  Dr.  Brownlee  calls  a  vicious  circle, 
which  in  logic  is  called  a  sophism,  proving  the  same  by  the  same, 
in  every  respect.  Here  you  see  the  document  is  proved  to  be 
a  genuine  record,  on  the  respectable  testimony  of  the  Catholic 
church,  before  the  infallibility  of  the  church  is  proved  from  the 
document.  This,  Rev.  Doctor,  is  not  what  logicians  call  pro- 
ving "  idem  per  idem  sub  omni  respectu." 

But  what  is  the  "  prominent  feature"  in  your  logic,  Rev.  Sir, 
when  you  undertake  to  prove  that  the  Bible  alone  is  a  sufficient 
rule  of  faith.  We  say  it  is  the  vicious  circle,  in  the  strictest 
sense.  Your  reasoning  evidently  resolves  itself  unto  this — the 
Bible  is  the  only  rule  of  faith  established  by  Christ,  because  the 
Bible  is  the  word  of  God  ;  and  the  Bible  is  the  word  of  God  be- 
cause it  tells  us,  that  it  is  the  word  of  God.  Thus  it  is,  Rev.  Sir, 
that  your  spirit,  like  the  spirit  of  darkness,  makes  its  tour  of  the 
circle,   "circnit  quoerene  quern  devoret." 

The  judge  and  interpreter  of  the  word  of  God,  is  the  Al- 
mighty God  speaking  in  it  to  us."  Hence  you  say  that  you  are 
slandered  by  the  Priests,  when  they  assert  that  the  Protestant 
rule  of  faith  is  the  Bible  as  explained  by  each  one,  by  private 
judgement  and  his  own  private  interpretation.  Now,  Rev.  Sir,  if 
the  Almighty  be  the  Judge  and  Interpreter  of  his  own  word, 
the  Holy  scriptures,  was  it  this  interpreter  that  taught  Luther  to 
affirm  the  three  first  gospels  to  be  Apocryphas — Luth.  pref  ad. 
nov.  Test,  et  in  epist.  Petri.  Tom.  3.  Wittemb.  Was  it  the  Al- 
mighty who  taught  Calvin  to  assert,  that  "  St.  Matthew  abused, 
distorted,  and  alleged,  unaptly,  divers  citations,"  "  That  St. 
Luke  was  an  apostate,  disloyal,  not  to  be  excused." — Calvin  in 
caput.  2  Matth.  v  15,  cap.  4,  v  13,  cap,  8,  v  17,  cap.  21,  v  3,  cap. 
27,  V  9.  Were  your  holy  ancestors  under  the  guidance  of  Al- 
mighty God,  when  in  the  Tower  disputation  they  asserted  "  that 
the  gospel  of  St.  Luke  is  doubtful."  Finally,  was  it  the  Almighty 
who  told  Calvin,  "  that  the  Apostles  were  over  superstitious  and 
subject  to  vice  !" — Vid  Calvin,  in  cap.  21  Act.  v  33.  Instead  of 
libelling  your  rule.  Rev.  Sir,  we  vindicate  the  insulted  Majesty  of 
the  Almighty,  from  the  blasphemies  heaped  on  him  by  you  and 
the  adherents  of  your  rule.  What,  the  God  of  Holiness  teaching 
Calvin  in  the  scriptures,  that  he  himself  is  the  author  of  sin! 
The  God  of  justice  and  of  mercy  teaching  Calvin  that  some  were 
created  to  be  damned  ;  for  we  read  in  the  third  book  of  his  evan- 
gelical institutes,  cap.  23d,  sect.  6,  the  horrible  assertion,  "God 
doth  ordain,  by  his  council  and  decree,  that  among  men  some 
22 


are  born,  destined  to  eternal  damnation  from  their  mother's 
womb  !"  Enough,  Rev.  Sir,  to  convince  us,  that  the  Protestant's 
interpreter  of  the  Bible  is  his  own  private  spirit,  and  not  the  Al- 
mighty God. 

We  have  said,  that  the  Jews  forgot  their  own  language,  and 
learned  the  Chaldaic,  during  the  Babylonish  captivity.  Will 
you  be  so  good  as  to  prove  to  us,  that  they  had  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures in  their  vernacuclar  tongue,  after  the  captivity.  Surely, 
Rev.  Sir,  you  will  not  presume  to  tell  us,  that  the  Targums  or 
theChaldee  paraphrases  were  looked  upon  by  the  Jews  as  Holy 
scripture  !■  Read  the  "  Critical  History  of  the  Old  Testament,  by 
the  learned  Simon — lib.  ii.  cap.  I7th — and  you  will  find  that  the 
Jews  were  obliged  to  read  the  Hebrew  text  in  their  Synagogues, 
and  that  none  of  their  versions  were  allowed.  These  they  read 
in  their  schools.  Hence,  the  scriptures  which  were  authorized 
by  the  Jewish  church,  were  those  which  the  people  did  not  un- 
derstand. Therefore  they  could  not  have  been  their  rule  of  faith. 
Nor  did  Christ  reprobate  the  Jewish  church  on  account  of  this 
discipline  ;  but  he  would  have  charged  them  with  locking  up  the 
word  of  God  from  the  people,  if  God  had  made  it  their  only  rule 
of  faith.  His  silence,  therefore,  on  this  point  is  an  argument 
that  God  did  not  give  the  scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  to  the 
Jews  as  their  only  rule  of  faith. 

"The  common  people,"  says  Slackhouse  in  his  Apparatus, 
"  by  having  so  long  conversed  with  the  Babylonians,  learned 
their  language  and  forgot  their  own."  Accordingly  there  were 
several  Targums  or  paraphrases  at  several  times,  made  by  dif- 
ferent persons.  Hence  we  conclude,  that,  when  Ezra,  "  after 
the  captivity  read  the  book  of  the  law  to  the  people,"  he  acted 
both  the  part  of  a  preacher  and  interpreter.  To  have  the  peo- 
ple understand  the  law  which  he  read,  he  must  have  translated 
it  for  them. 

The  distinction  between  subjective  and  objective  infallibility, 
is  worthy  of  the  logician,  and  great  magician  of  the  Middle 
Dutch  Church.  The  Holy  scriptures  are  infallible,  because 
they  are  tlie  Word  of  God.  "  But  there  is  no  such  thing  as 
subjective  infallibility."  To  then  Almighty  God,  who  is  the 
interpreter  of  the  Holy  scriptures,  and  not  your  own  private 
spirit,  does  not  infallibility  teach  you  the  truth  ! !  !  But  Rev. 
Dr.  if  God  were  distinctly  to  tell  you,  that  he  would  teach  you 
all  truth  ;  if  God  were  to  tell  you  to  "go  and  teach  what  he 
himself  taught  you,  promising  to  be  with  you,  even  to  the  end 
of  the  world  !"  if  you  were  described  by  one  of  Heaven's  en- 
voys as  the  *'  pillar  and  the  ground  of  truth,"  we  should  then 
hail  you  as  the  infallible  Dr.  Brownlee,  and  your  Bulls  would  be 


171 

rcctived  with  more  deference  than  they  are  at  present.  By  be- 
ing united  to  Dr.  Brownlee,  we  could  not  err,  by  departing  from 
Dr.  Brownlee  we  should  err.  But,  finding,  that  it  was  not  to 
preacher  Brownlee,  that  Christ  made  the  magnificient  and  glo- 
rious promises  above  alluded  to,  but  to  his  church,  we  abandon 
preacher  Brownlee  to  his  raving  and  attach  ourselves  to  the 
church,  convinced  that  as  long  as  we  are  united  to  her,  we  can- 
not err,  but  if  thro'  obstinacy  and  stubbornness,  we  abandon  her, 
we  swerve  from  the  truth,  and  err  vvilh  Arius,  Nestorius,  Mace- 
donius,  Pelagius  and  Brownlee.  The  christian  rule  of  faith,  Rev. 
Sir,  in  the  hands  of  the  church,  will  infallibly  lead  us  to  the 
truth.  All  the  parts  of  the  beautiful  edifice  of  revelation  will  then 
be  arranged  without  fear  of  irregularity,  but  when  put  into  the 
hands  of  every  canting  fanatic,  who  audaciously  says  that  the 
church  is  not  '*  the  pillar  and  ground  of  truth,"  it  will  be  abused, 
and  out  of  this  abuse,  will  grow  heresies,  blasphemy,  and  all 
manner  of  impiety.  Read  the  history  of  the  last  two  hundred 
years  and  you  will  be  convinced  of  this. 

In  conclusion,  we  give  you  the  following  advice  "  Great  care 
must  be  taken  lest  your  debates  break  in  upon  your  passions,  and 
awaken  them  to  take  part  in  the  controversy.  When  the  oppo- 
nent pushes  hard  and  gives  just  and  mortal  wounds  to  our  own 
opinion,  our  passions  are  very  apt  to  feel  the  strokes,  and  to  rise 
in  resentment  and  defence.  Self  is  so  mingled  with  the  senti- 
ments, which  we  have  chosen,  and  has  such  a  tender  feeling  of 
opposition  which  is  made  to  them,  that  personal  brawls  are  very 
ready  to  come  in  as  seconds  to  succeed  and  finish  the  dispute  of 
opinion.  Then  noise  and  folly  appear  in  all  their  shapes,  and 
chase  reason  and  truth  out  of  sight."  See  Dr.  Watts  on  the 
improvement  of  the  mind.  We  need  not  tell  you,  that  the  chris- 
tian public  see  you  reflected  in  this  mirror. 

JOHN  POWER, 
THOMAS  C.  LEVINS. 

New  York,  .6lpril  23,  1833. 


172 
I0r.  Brawnlee^s  Mjctter,  JVo.  7. 

TO  DRS.  POWER,  VARELA,  cV   LEVINS. 

"  Strike,  but  hear  me!"— Saying  of  a  Greek  General. 

Rev.  Gentlemen — I  have  gone  over  your  last  letter  carefully,  to 
ascertain  what  might  claim  special  attention.  You  have  not 
advanced  one  solitary  new  idea  ;  far  less  an  observation,  or  form 
of  reason,  bearing  against  my  last  arguments.  There  is  not 
novelty  even  in  the  style ;  it  is  the  old,  usual  deep  stained  ri- 
baldry,— dyed  in  the  wool ;  and  sitting  at  defiance  every  process 
to  wash  it, — or  bleach  it !"  This  being  the  case  I  decline  set- 
ting down  any  more,  my  proof  of  our  Protestant  Rule.  I  beg 
the  reader  to  peruse,  once  more,  the  four  answers  in  the  begin- 
ning of  my  last  letter;  and  then,  let  him  go  over, — if  his  nerves 
and  delicacy  will  permit  him  to  wade  through, — all  the  priests' 
last  letter,  in  reply.  Every  intelligent  Christian,  it  is  believed, 
will  do  me  the  justice  to  admit  that  the  Protestant  rule  has  been 
now  fully  established ;  and  that,  the  Roman  rule,  has  been  like- 
wise utterly  demolished,  by  our  ten  arguments,  which  have  not 
even  been  noticed,  far  less  answered,  by  my  Rev.  opponents. 

I  shall,  therefore,  hasten  to  close  my  reply  to  the  remaitiing 
infidel  objections,  urged  with  such  appalling  intemperance  of 
spirit,  against  the  only  rule  of  faith  THE  WORD  OF  GOD  ; 
AND  THE  ONLY  JUDGE  OF  CONTROVERSY  THE  HO- 
LY SPIRIT  SPEAKING  TO  US  IN  IT.  And  in  my  next  I 
shall  go  on  to  a  new  and  interesting  subject, — reserving  the  li- 
berty of  defence,  as  well  as  of  making  offensive  war  on  the 
foemen. 

I  shall  review  your  infidel  insinuations,  drawn  from  textu- 
al difficulties.  The  christian  and  ingenuous  scholar,  when  he 
meets  with  these  difficulties  in  the  holy  Bible,  would  seek  the 
solution  of  them  on  the  pages  of  those  profound  Biblical  wri- 
ters, who  have  spent  their  time,  and  exercised  their  talents,  in 
the  illustration  of  Biblical  literature.  He  would  examine  Bo- 
chart,  Whitby,  Lightfoot,  **Lux  in  Tenebris ;"  or  your  own  mo- 
dern writers  the  admirable  Jahn,  and  Bug  ;  and  he  would  soon 
discover  that  there  is  not  one  textual  difliculty,  which  has  not 
been  satisfactorily  solved.  But  "  fat  contented  ignorance,"  and 
infidelity  strongly  conspire  to  cry  out, — "a gross  contradiction! 
And  the  Bible  is  false  I"  It  is  a  part  of  the  unnatural  infidel's 
criticism,  to  exhibit  difficulties,  and  apparent  contradiction  in 
HIS  FATHER'S  WILL,  with  an  air  of  triumph  ;  and  feed  his 
soul  on  them  with  a  greedy  appetite  ;  as, — pardon  me,  you, 
gentlemen,  have  done   before  the  public.     And  after  all,  could 


173 

he  convict  HIS  FATHER'S  will  of  errors,  and  apparent  con- 
tradictions, what  gains  he  ?  Just  as  much  as  you  do.  Unholy 
must  that  cause  be,  which  re(|uires,  for  its  ch^fence,  a  parricidal 
thrust,  however  powerless,  at  the  holy  scriptures  of  our  Lord 
and  Savior  Jesus  Christ. 

And  I  would  here  observe  that  the  authority  and  genuineness 
of  our  common  law  or  Declaration  of  Independence,  would  not 
at  all  be  alfected  by  some  slight  mistakes  of  the  transcriber  or 
printer.  We  maintain  the  same  in  regard  to  the  Bible.  While 
not  one  sentence  is  marred;  not  one  item  lost;  not  one  doctrine 
altered,  we  may  admit  that  a  transcriber,  not  being  inspired, 
may  have  mis- spelled  words,  or  even  substituted  one  proper 
name  for  another.  Would  the  omission  of  a  name,  or  the  alte- 
ration of  a  name,  in  some  copies  of  the  signers  of  seventy-six, 
render  null  and  void  the  whole  instrument  signed  7  Surely  not. 
Apply  this  principal  to  the  point  before  us. 

In  2  Kings  viii.  26,  Ahaziah  is  said  to  have  been  twenty-two 
years  old  when  he  began  to  reign  :  in  2  Chron.  xxii.  2,  he  is 
said  to  have  been  forty-two.  The  Hebrews  had  no  arithmetical 
figures ;  they  used  the  letters  of  the  alphabet.  And  in  this  case 
a  transcriber  had  written  the  letter  mem,  whose  power  is  40  ;  in- 
stead of  the  letter  caph,  whose  power  is  20.  And  the  Hebrew- 
scholar  knows  that  these  two  letters,  with  the  difference  of  a 
slight  perpendicular  dash,  are  much  alike.  Does  this  change  of 
a  letter  affect  any  article  of  faith  9 

Math.  i.  17.  There  are  said  to  be  14  generations  between  Sa- 
lathiel  and  Christ ;  yet  13  only  are  recorded.  Whitby  has  sol- 
ved it,  by  showing  that,  by  Jeconias,  named  in  verse  11,  is  meant 
Jehoiachim,  the  eldest  son  of  Josias:  and  that  Jeconias  named 
in  the  12th  verse  was  Jehoiakim's  son,  who  was  the  father  of  Sa- 
lathiel.  This  completes  the  14th  generation.  Dr.  Lightfoot 
advocates  the  following  solution.  It  was  a  custom,  nay,  even 
an  axiom,  in  the  Jewish  schools,  to  reduce  things  and  numbers, 
to  the  very  same  name,  when  they  were  nearly  alike.  This  was 
avowedly  to  aid  the  memory.  I  beg  leave  to  refer  to  his  book 
HorcB  Hebraicce.  Now  Matthew  has  observed  the  three-fold  di- 
vision of  Jewish  Chronology  ;  namely,  the  era  before  the  kings  ; 
the  era  of  their  natural  declension,  down  to  the  time  of  Mes- 
siah. And  to  help  the  memory,  after  the  manner  of  the  Hebrew 
school,  he  has  divided  each  of  the  three  eras  into  fourteen  gene- 
rations. Now,  no  scholar  can  suppose  this  is  to  be  taken  in  its 
strict  and  literal  sense,  says  the  Doctor.  For  it  is  just  as  true 
that  Matthew  has  designedly  left  out  three  kings,  in  the  8th 
verse ;  in  order  to  make  14  generations,  in  the  first  era  ;  as  that 
he  has  called  the  third  era  14  generations,  while  it  contains  13 


174 

«n?y.  AU  this  was  strictly  in' keeping  with  the  national  custom 
or  rule  of  the  Jews, — which  Matthew  did  not  invent, — but  fol- 
low :  for  it  was  to  the  Hebrews  that  he  was  writing.  See  Poli 
Syiiops.  in  loco. 

Luke  iii.  35,  36.  "  Salah  was  the  son  of  Cainan,  who  was  the 
son  of  Ai'[)haxad."  Genesis  records  it  thus  : — ''  Arphaxad  begat 
Salah."  One  solution  is  thus  : — Salah  and  Cainan  were  the 
namics  of  one  person  ;  the  latter  being  the  cognon:yen  ;  and  hence 
ihey  read  it  thus, — Salah  the  Cainan,  who  was  the  son  of  Ar- 
phaxad. Others  are  of  opinion  that,  as  Cainan  is  found  only  in 
the  Septuagint,  Greek  translation,  and  not  in  the  Hebrew  text  of 
Moses, — it  was  inserted  into  some  copies  of  the  Greek  Testament, 
out  o>f  those  copies  of  the  Septuagint,  which  had  this  word. 
Beza  states  that  in  his  copy  the  word  Cainan  was  not  found  : 
and  lately  Or.  Hales  has  shown  that  this  extra  name  is  an  inter- 
polation in  the  Greek  Septuagint.  [See  his  New  Analysis,  vol. 
1.  p.  90 — 94.]  And  frt>m  this  it  had  been  transferred  into  some 
copies  of  Luke,  by  a  transcriber.  It  has  been  observed  by  an  emi- 
nent Biblrcal  scholar  that  all  the  variations,  and  all  the  various 
readings  which  friend  or  foe  can  discover,  do  not  alter  the  aspect 
t>f  one  doctrine,  or  a  single  article  of  our  creed.  Home  in  vol.  1 
appendix  iii.  has  devoted  64  pages  to  a  minute  examination  of 
these  textual  difficulties.  To  these,  for  want  of  room,  I  beg 
leave  to  refer  my  readers. 

You  have  presented  an  objection  from  other  two  texts  :  I  beg 
leave  to  notice  them.  The  first  is  Math,  xxvii,  9  :  "  Then  was 
fulfilled  that  which  was  spoken  by  Jeremy  the  prophet."  And 
tbe  words  quoted  are  not  found  any  where  in  Jeremiah, — but  in 
Zachariiah.  From  this  you  infer  that  a  part  of  Jeremiah  has  been 
icst  :and,  therefore,  his  book  is  mutilated,  and  the  Bible  imper- 
fect. This  is  uttered  in  the  style  of  those  of  whose  theological 
edttcation,  an  accurate  and  enlightened  Bible  criticism,  forms 
no  part  whatever.  The  scholar  knows  that  there  are  solutions 
without  supposing  any  such  outrageous  conclusion.  First  : 
These  wofds  may  have  been  first  spoken  by  Jeremiah  ;  and  then 
recorded,  afterwards,  by  Zachariah.  Or,  second ;  we  may  con- 
clude with  Bishop  Hall  and  Griesbach,  that  a  transcriber  may 
have,  in  certain  copies,  written  Jriou  for  Zriou,  that  is,  the  con- 
tracted form  of  Jeremiah,  instead  of  the  contracted  form  of  Za- 
chariah.  Or,  third: — We  may  say  with  others,  that  Zachariah 
was  also  called  by  the  name  of  Jeremiah,  as  his  cognomen.  See 
instances  of  this  in  Home,  vol.  i.  p.  528.  One  apostle  was 
sometimes  called  Joses ;  at  other  times  Barnabas.  And  he  who 
was  nominated  but  not  chosenfto  the  apostleship,  is  called  Joseph, 
and  Barsabas,  and  Justin- 


17-5 

The  second  text  from  whicli  you  raise  an  nl»jix-li<)ii  a^^nirist 
<'  the  perfect  law"  of  God,  is  JNlatthcw  ii.  2 J,  *'  That  it  min;hl 
be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by  the  prophets,  he  shall  be  called 
a  NAZARENE."  Now,  this  is  nowhere  found  in  the  prophets' 
writings  :  and  your  conclusion  is, — that  some  portion  of  the 
Holy  scriptures  is  lost.  Here  it  might  be  cpiite  enough  to  de- 
mand,— what  is  lost'?  "  Why,"  say  you, — "this  phrase  or  sen- 
tence, is  lost.  He  shall  be  called  a  Nazarene."  Then  I  deny 
the  position:  for  it  stands  here  in  the  IJible  before  your  eyes: 
and  if  it  ever  had  been  omitted,  then  here  it  is  restored  by  the 
inspired  penman.  And  therefore,  you  the  objectors  being 
judges,  it  is  not  lost ! 

I  shall  give  another  solution.  Matthew  refers  to  no  one  pro- 
phet:  "  it  was  spoken  by  the  prophets."  He  refers  to  no  one 
sentiment,  or  sentence  ;  he  alludes  to  some  marked  characteris- 
tic of  Christ,  noticed  by  the  holy  prophets  generally.  And  ac- 
cording to  the  four  Rules  laid  down  by  Wolfius  and  RosenmuUer, 
in  reference  to  the  mode  pursued  by  the  New  Testament  writers, 
in  their  quotations  out  of  the  Old  Testament. — we  perceive  that 
they  often  quoted  the  meaning,  instead  of  the  passage  literally: 
that  is  they  give  us  the  sense,  instead  of  the  formal  and  literal 
quotation  ;  and  especially  so,  when  they  were  quoting,  not  out 
of  one  prophet;  but  from  "the  prophets;"  with  a  view  to  give 
a  condensed  view  of  the  passage.  Surenhusius  the  learned  He- 
brew Professor  in  Amsterdam,  has  observed  in  his  Biblos  KataJ- 
lages,  p.  2.  that  this  phrase  "  to  fulfil  what  was  said,"  was  a  fami- 
liar phrase  of  the  Talmudists  ;  and  used  by  the  learned  Jews, 
when  they  alleged  not  the  very  words  of  Moses,  and  the  pro- 
phets, but  their  sense  which  was  deduced,  as  a  certain  axiom 
from  them. 

Now  apply  this  rule  of  legitimate  criticism  to  the  words  of 
Matthew,  under  discussion.  A  Nazarene  was  the  epithet  used 
among  the  Hebrews  and  Jews,  of  old,  to  denote  the  meanest, 
and  most  despised  of  mankind.  This  was  the  character  of  the 
men  of  Nazareth.  Now,  it  was  foretold  by  David,  psalm  xxii, 
and  psalm  Ixix,  9  10;  and  Isaiah  lii.  and  liii.  chapters;  and  also 
by  Zachariah  xi,  12,  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  was  to  appear  on 
earth,  a  most  humble  and  despised  man  of  sorrows.  And  though 
born  in  Bethlehem  of  David's  royal  line,  he  was  brought  up  in 
Nazareth  among  the  Nazarenes  ;  and  was,  therefore,  by  the 
malignant  Jews,  called  and  reproached  as  a  Nazarene.  And 
thus,  what  was  spoken  by  *^  the  Prophets"  was  literally  fulfilled  ; 
and  hence,  no  part  of  their  writings  is  lost. 

H.  Another  all  prevailing  error  in  your  letters  is  this  :  in  op- 
position  to  the  Rule   of  Faith  ordained  by  God,  you  constantly 


176 

make  this  assumption,  that  Protestants  separate  the  Bible  from 
the  holy  ministry,  and  oral  teaching.  On  this  assumption  is 
based  every  objection,  brought  forward  in  your  questions  in 
your  answer  to  my  letter  Let.  4;  on  this  are  based  all  your 
objections  relative  to  the  supposed  obscurity  of  the  Bible  :  and 
all  that  steady  and  unflinching  opposition  of  the  Pope  and  his 
Priests  to  the  Bible  Societies  ;  and  the  Catholic  distribution  of 
the  Scriptures  among  the  laity.  While  no  assurance  to  the  con- 
trary, and  no  exposure  of  the  unmanly  misrepresentation,  will 
induce  the  Priests  to  do  justice  to  truth  and  tliemselves,  as  well 
as  to  us.  We  never  separate  oral  instruction  from  the  reading 
of  the  scriptures.  And  we  know  from  experience  that,  in  pro- 
portion as  the  Bible  is  gratuitously  distributed,  is  the  call  for 
the  ministry  urgent  from  the  people  where  the  Scriptures  are 
read.  The  appointed  ministry  of  Christ,  acting  and  minis- 
tering in  his  name,  read  and  expound  the  word.  And  as  the 
Bible  is  read,  pastor  and  people  hear  God  speaking  unto  them  ; 
and  learn  the  law  from  the  Most  High. 

II [.  You  object  out  of  the  Jesuit  Mumford  and  Milner,  that 
there  arc  certain  things,  such  as  infant  baptism.,  and  the  change 
of  the  Sabbath,  which  scripture  does  not  settle  ;  and  which  tra- 
dition of  the  church  alone  can. 

There  is  a  two-fold  error  in  my  opponents'  argument  here : — 
1st.  Even  admitting  that  these  are  to  be  established  by  tradition, 
it  is  the  consummation  of  sacerdotal  arrogance  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  Priests,  to  despise  the  Syriac,  and  the  African,  and  the 
ancient  Italic  churches,  and  lo  claim  the  absolute  and  exclusive 
right  of  handing  down  that  which  all  the  other  churches  did 
hand  down  by  tradition. 

2d.  These  ordinances  were  established  by  scripture  as  well  as 
the  faithful  testimony  of  all  the  churches.  In  i.  Cor.  xvi.  1.  2. 
Here  St.  Paul  gives  a  Divine  injunction  as  much  to  observe  the 
Sabbath  of  the  first  day  of  the  week,  as  to  make  a  collection 
for  the  poor  on  that  day.  And  for  infant  baptism,  see  Matthew 
Axviii,  19  :  and  Acts  ii  38.  39.  Now,  I  am  not  going  to  dictate 
to  my  beloved  and  honored  Baptist  Brethren.  They  have  a 
right  to  hear  God's  word  and  to  interpret  that  word  spoken  to 
them  and  to  me;  just  as  you  claim  the  right  to  interpret  what 
"holy  mother"  says  to  you  gentlemen.  Now  availing  ourselves 
of  the  right  of  hearing  for  ourselves,  we  say  God  commands  us 
to  teach,  or  disciple,  and  baptize  "  all  nations."  And  as  infants 
constitute  the  third  item  of  nations,  as  much  as  men  and  women 
do  the  other  two,  we  humbly  infer  that  we  have  the  command  to 
baptise  our  infants.  A  christian  brother  says — "  infants  are  not 
expressly  named."     *'  True,  dear  brother :  but  neither  is  man  nor 


177 

woman  menlioned  :  infants  are  as  much  mentioned,  as  adults." 
And,  moreover,  in  Acts  iii.  38,  39,  we  have  another  testimony  : 
and  we  erect  our  argument  thus  :  When  an  ordinance  and  a 
promise  are  combined  and  connected  as  here,  all  those  mention- 
ed and  named  in  the  promise  have  a  right  to  the  ordinance  :  but 
the  [)r()mise  here  connected  with  baptism,  includes  infants  and 
parents:  Here  tiie  words  literally  rendered,  "  Repent  ye,"  [in 
the  plural,]  "and  be  ba{)tized  every  one  of  you  ;  for  the  promise 
is  to  you  and  }our  cliildren.  If  dear  Protestant  brethren  differ, 
— so  do  Jesuits  and  Jansenists,  and  Franciscans  and  Dominicans. 

You  lay  much  stress  on  the  traditions,  alluded  to  by  Paul  in  2 
Thess.  iii.  6.  And  you  infer  from  this,  that  besides  the  written 
word,  Paul  delivered  unwritten  traditions,  "  Hold  the  traditions 
which  ye  have  been  taught,  whether  by  word  or  our  epistle." 

IVovv  gentlemen,  it  cannot  have  escaped  you,  that  the  Apos- 
tle mentions  three  distinct  classes  of  Traditions  ;  namely,  the 
Traditions  of  men,  which  he  reprobates;  Col.  ii.  8.  and  which 
our  Lord  also  condemned  ;  Mark  vii.  9.  Then  there  were  the 
traditions  touching  things  indifferent  ;  or  mere  opinions,  such 
as  frequency  of  communion,  and  so  forth  ;  and  finally,  traditions 
by  inspiration  ;  and  which  regard  the  same  doctrines  and  ordi- 
nances exhibited  in  the  New  Testament.  Thus  Paul,  first,  gave 
the  Corinthians  the  Lord's  Supper,  by  oral  tradition;  and  then 
he  gave  it  by  writing.  "For  I  have  received  of  the  Lord,  that 
which  also  1  delivered,^'  or  gave  you,  that  is,  by  tradition,  from 
Christ.  These  traditions  from  Christ  are  the  same  as  immedi- 
ate communications  by  inspiration — and  were,  like  all  revelations 
from  God,  established  to  the  satisfaction  and  faith  of  the  Church, 
by  the  evidence  i/iierna/ a?ic/ex/ernaZ,  so  often  mentioned  already 
by  me. 

Now  if  we  or  an  angel  from  heaven  bring  any  thing  by  a  tra- 
dition without  apostolical  and  miraculous  evidence,  "  let  that 
tradition,  and  its  fanatical  votary  be  accursed."  If  your  tra- 
ditions, gentlemen,  are  of  men,  we  reject  them  as  ''  accursed,'* 
if  they  came  from  God,  then  they  are  accompanied  by  the  evi- 
dence of  the  gift  of  miracles,  prophecy,  and  tongues.  But  your 
traditions  have  no  divine  evidence.  Therefore  they  are  men's 
inventions;  and  are  by  St.  Paul's  rule  **  accursed." 

IV.  Of  the  Vulgate. — I  request  my  reader,  with  your  leave, 
gentlemen,  to  turn  to  your  letter  three  near  the  close,  where  you 
make  an  extraordinary  defence  of  your  Vulgate  Latin,  Bible. — 
I  had  called  it,  after  deliberate  examination  "  the  worst  of  the 
worst  translations."  You  usher  in  your  defence  with  these 
words,  "  It  is  painful  to  be  obliged  to  expose  your  (Dr.  B's^ 
Ignorance,  where,  you  ought  to  be  better  informed."  This  bt- 
No.  12.— 23 


ITS 

nevolence,  in  which  you  are  as  generously  sincere,  I  dare  say 
as  if  you  had  been  administering  extreme  unction  to  your  victim, 
— is  quite  out  of  keeping,  and  in  malignantly  bad  taste.  I  in- 
voke the  whole  body  of  the  learned,  now  to  judge  between  us, 
— both  Roman  Catholics  and  Protestants  ;  and  then  let  them 
pronounce  who  is  the  most  profoundly  ignorant  of  translations. 

In  reference  to  the  Vulgate,  I  beg  leave  to  remark,  that  Je- 
rome finished  his  labors  on  his  translation  in  A.  D.  384.  There 
existed  before  him  the  old  Italick  version  from  the  Greek 
Vulgate.  This  version  is  the  oldest  in  Latin  :  it  was  made 
in  the  close  of  the  second  century.  Jerome  endeavored 
to  improve  on  this  version  :  but  in  too  many  instances  it 
was  corrupted.  1  refer  you  gentlenjen,  to  the  profound  critic 
Nolan,  on  the  integrity  of  the  Greek  Vulgate.  In  the  second 
chapter  of  Luke,  v.  33,  the  Greek  Vatican  and  the  Vulgate 
make  Joseph  the  father  of  the  Lord  ;  "  pater  illius,  et  mater." 
And  this  eminent  critic  shows  that  these  two  versions,  on  this 
text,  are  '^  grossly  corrupt,"  See  Nolan  p.  169.  note.  And 
Lowth  has  shown,  that,  in  some  instances,  the  Latin  Vulgate  is 
found  "  to  be  notoriously  deficient  in  expressing  the  sense." 
See  his  translation  of  Isaiah,  p.  Ixxiii. 

You  seem  to  think,  gentlemen,  in  your  letter  three,  that  Jerome 
possessed  a  copy  of  Origen's  Hexapla,  or  Polyglot,  as  you  call 
it.  Jerome  had  not  so  many  facilities  as  your  exuberant  imagi- 
nation has  conceived.  He  had  not  the  Hexapla  :  and  you  ought 
to  have  known  that.  He  was  compelled  to  perform  a  long  voy- 
age, from  Rome  to  Cassarea,  in  order  to  consult  that  book.  See 
Home,  vol.  ii.  p.  198.  You  have  betrayed  your  ignorance  of 
the  subject ;  and,  I  am  no  hypocrite. — I  am  not  sorry  in  expo- 
sins^  your  ignorance,  pro  bono  publico  ! 

Yet,  severely  as  we  may  criticise  this  old  version,  I  assure  you, 
gentlemen,  I  did  not  allude  to  Jerome's  true  version,  when  I  cal- 
led it  the  worst  of  translations.  I  alluded  to  your  Vulgate  as 
it  now  exists;  and  as  it  is  spread  out  before  the  English  reader 
in  the  Douay  Bible.  The  Roman  Catholics  seek  to  palm  it  on 
the  public  as  the  genuine  version  of  Jerome.  But,  this  preten- 
sion ;  and  all  your  quotations  from  approving  Protestants,  such 
as  Grotius,  Walton,  and  so  on, — are  not  only  to  no  purpose  ; 
but  absolutely  deceptions,  and  you,  if  Greek  and  Hebrew  scho- 
lars, ought  to  know  all  this.  I  here  beg  leave  to  challenge  any 
scholar,  in  good  faith,  to  produce  one  of  our  learned  Protestants 
who  applauds  the  Roman  Latin  Vulgate  as  it  now  is. 

Of  the  valuable  labors  of  Jerome,  none  approve  more  highly, 
and  none  are  more  able  by  virtue  of  their  accomplished  educa- 
tion, to  approve  more  highly,  than  the  Protestants.  But  can  you 
possibly  be  ignorant  of  what  Nolan  has  given  ample  evidence, 
that  St.  Augustine  himself,  though  he  did  indeed  approve  of  the 


labors  of  Jerome,  did  not  use  tliis  version  :  he  used  tlie  old  Ilalick 
version,  to  tlic  day  of  his  death.  [See  Nolan  p.  15.]  And  the 
learned  irornc  has  shown  thai,  from  the  days  of  Cassiodorus, 
down  to  Alcum,  in  tlie  Stii  century,  "  the  text  of  the  Vulgate  fell 
into  great  conlusion  :  and  was  disfigured  by  the  innumerable 
mistakes  of  copyists."  But  the  most  curious  part  of  the  history 
of  the  Vulgate  remains  to  be  told.  The  Council  of  Trent  small, 
very  small  in  numbers  ;  and  by  the  best  judges,  namely  the  Pro- 
testant literati,  deemed  still  smaller  in  literature  and  theology, 
[see  also  P.  Sarpi  Lib.  2.  s.  51.]  did  actually  pronounce  the  Vul- 
gate, with  all  its  palpable  errors,  to  be  inspired  and  divine.  Like 
our  friend,  fiither  Levins,  whom  I  have  had  the  honor  of  intro- 
ducing so  advantageously  to  the  "christian  public," — and  who 
seems  really  not  to  be  conscious  in  wliai  language  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments  were  written,  unless  it  was  the  old  Irish  ;  and 
therefore,  he  blunders  out  his  taunts,  incessantly  "  against  the 
Greek  and  Hebrew  of  the  inspired  volumes," — these  same  Tri- 
dentine  fathers,  with  the  exception  of  the  good  Hebrew  scholar, 
Cardinal  Cajetan,  actually  preferred  the  Latin  version  of  the  Bi- 
ble, to  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  originals  !  I  ! 

These  fathers  appointed  a  committee  to  revise  and  correct  this 
same  version,  which  they  had  pronounced  inspired  !  But,  in  as 
much  as  this  thing  displeased  the  Pope,  it  was  placed  over  into 
his  Holiness'  care.  It  passed  through  no  less  than  three  Pope's 
hands.  Sixtus  V.  had  it  published  as  the  only  pure  and  perfect 
Vulgate  :  he  issued  a  Bull,  "enjoining  its  universal  reception  ; 
and  threatening  with  no  less  than  perdition,  the  man  who  should 
make  the  slightest  alterations.  And,  though  issued  by  the  infcil- 
lible,  in  the  plentitude  of  his  knowledge  and  power,  it  had  not 
been  long  before  the  public,  before  it  was  found  to  abound  in 
errors!  And  it  was  quickly  called  in.  Clement  VHI.  Pope,  not 
having  the  fear  of  the  Bull  of  Sixtus  before  his  eyes,  did  actually 
make  very  many  alterations.  His  new  edition  he  published  in 
A.  D.  1592  ;  and  like  a  good  Pope,  he  propped  and  barricaded 
this  new  and  a  second  time,  perfect  edition,  by  a  similar  Bull, 
pronouncing  it  now  to  be  immaculate,  and  the  only  Vulgate:  and, 
moreover,  in  the  plentitude  of  infallible  power,  forbidding  any 
alterations  to  be  made  in  it,  by  any  body,  on  pains  of  the  most 
terrible  anathemas  !  !  But,  behold,  the  very  next  year,  namely, 
1593,  anew,  and  corrected,  and  altered  edition  was  issued ;  and 
more  perfect  than  his  former  most  perfect  edition  !  ! 

Now,  all  these  phenomena  are  easily  accounted  for.  It  wag 
not  for  want  of  scholarship  to  translate  Hebrew  and  Greek  into 
Latin.  No,  no  :  the  real  and  insuperable  difficulty  lay,  in  get- 
ting something  like  a  translation,  simply  with  a  view  to  lend 


180 

et>untenance  to  the  new  Roman  system  of  doctrine,  and  rituals, 
which  had  no  place,  nor  name,  nor  recognition  in  all  the  Bible 
of  God  I! 

Now,  gentlemen,  in  your  laudatory  zeal  for  the  Vulgate,  I  call 
on  you,  publicly,  to  say,  which  of  these  "infallibly  accurate," 
and  "  contradictory"  versions  you  do  adhere  to.  Dr.  James  in 
his  book  "  Bellium  papale,"  has  set  down  two  thousand  varia- 
tions between  the  Sixtine,  and  the  Clementine  editions  of  your 
Vulgate  I  I  have  now  before  me  a  large  selection,  in  whicli  the 
first  Pope's  version  leaves  out  whole  verses,  which  the  last  Pope's 
version  has  !  The  Clementine  has,  again,  omitted  entire  clau- 
ses which  the  Sixtine  has  inserted  :  besides  I  have,  before  me 
a  list  of  "  manifest  contradictions,"  between  the  two  ;  besides 
many  other  remarkable  diiTerences.  Now,  gentlemen,  to  which 
of  these '^  only  perfect  copies,"  of  these  equally  "infallible," 
and  contradictory  Popes,  do  you  yield  your  conscience  and  faith  7 
The  call  is  made  on  you  to  declare  this  in  good  faith.  We 
know  that  you  cannot :  we  know  that  you  have  manifested  an 
utter  want  of  information  on  this  subject.  In  your  Letter  3, 
you  say,  "You  [Dr.  B.]  ought  to  know  that  the  Vulgate  version 
was  made,  when  the  best  and  purest  copies  of  the  Hebrew,  Chal- 
daic,  Greek  and  Latin,  together  with  the  Polyglots  of  Origen 
were  to  be  had  :  and  this  version  has  been  constantly  in  the  hands 
of  the  Western  Church,  in  all  its  extent,  for  fifteen  centuries." 
I  profess  it  is  impossible  to  quote  even  from  yourselves,  gentle- 
men, another  sentence  containing  more  wilful  and  wicked  mis- 
representation, or  one  exhibiting  more  profound  ignorance  of 
the  history  of  your  Vulgate  !  You  actually  hold  up  the  idea 
that  your  Vulgate  is  now  what  Jerome  left  it!  And  you  keep 
out  of  view  the  endless  variati<ins  and  innovations  n^ade  on 
Jerome's  version  by  the  Sixtine  and  Clementine  labors  !  !  1  beg 
leave  merely  for  want  of  room,  to  refer  to  Home,  vol.  ii.  pp. 
200,  201  :  for  a  comparative  view  of  these  variations  ;  and  "  mani- 
fest contradictions,"  between  the  two  editions  of  the  infallible 
Popes.  As  for  the  true  Jerome  version,  it  unquestionably  is  of 
great  value. 

The  Douay  Bible,  now  before  the  American  public,  exhibits 
the  unhallowed  liberties  taken  by  designing  men,  with  the  word 
of  God.  For  instance,  in  the  second  commandment  your  Douay 
renders  the  first  clause,  'Uhou  shalt  not  make  unto  thee  any 
graven  thing,"  instead  of  "  image;"  And  the  phrase  "thou 
ihalt  not  bow  down  thyself  to  them,"  you  corruptly  render, 
"thou  shall  not  adore  them."  In  the  New  Testament  you  ren- 
der metanoeite,  "  do  penance,"  whereas  it  means  "  be  ye  changed 
in  your  minds  by  repentance,"  or  "  repent   ye."     You  convert 


181 

John  ihs  Bnptist  and  St.  Peter  into  heretical  Roman  Priests,  and 
make  thein  prench  the  modern  cant  of, — "  Do  penance;  for  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand  ;"  and  ^*do  penance  and  be  bap- 
tized." You  cannot  conceive  the  inditjjnation  which  those  an- 
cient worthies  must  feel  to  have  such  language  imputed  unto 
them,  "  Do  penance!"  A  thing  which  John  and  Peter  never 
heard  of,  and  never  conceived  of,  in  their  pure  evangelical 
minds!  ]Moreover,  this  snino  Dou:iy  converts  the  apostle  Paul's 
solemn  warning  in  Colossians  ii  IS,  against  the  idolatrous  wor- 
ship of  angels,  into  an  impenetrable  mysticism  of  language  ;  or 
else  a  real  exhortation  to  be  "voluntary  in  humility,  and  the  re- 
ligion" or  worship  "  of  angels  !"  And  what  fills  every  devout 
christian  with  utter  amazement,  you  convert  the  good  old  patri- 
arch Jacob  into  a  driveling  Roman  idolator  in  liis  last  moments 
Will  the  public  believe  me,  when  I  assure  them,  that  the  Roman 
Douay  Bible,  latelv  published  in  New-York, — renders  Hebrews 
Ai.  21,  in  the  following,  "JACOB  ADORED  THE  TOP  OF 
HIS  STAFF  I  !"  Therefore,  I  repeat  what  I  formerly  asserted, 
that  the  Vulgate,  as  it  now  is,  is  one  of  the  worst,  and  most  mis- 
chievous versions  of  the  Bible!  And  it  is  a  literary  imposition 
on  the  public  to  call  your  Vulgate  the  version  of  Jerome. 

I  ought  here  to  notice  your  injurious  reflection  on  the  He- 
brew and  Greek  originals  in  Letter  3.  "  These  have  been  during 
many  ages,  in  the  hands  of  wandering  Jews,  &c. ;  and,  therefore, 
you  cannot  possibly  answer  A)r  the  changes  they  have  under- 
gone :"  and  you  thence  recommend  '*  deep  silence  on  this  point.' 
Here  you  gravely  assume  the  supposition  that  the  wandering 
Jews  and  oppressed  Asiatics  have  been  carrying  all  the  H-^-brew 
and  Greek  originals  with  them  ;  that  the  Christian  churches  in 
Asia,  in  Africa,  and  Europe,  had  no  copies!  Does  this  re- 
quire any  sober  reply?  Does  not  every  scholar  know  that 
Jews,  and  Christians,  possessing  each,  many  ancient  copies, 
h.ive  been  anxiously  watching  each  other.  And  the  immense 
labors  of  Dr.  Kennicot,  in  his  s[)lendid  Hebrew  Bible,  and  those 
of  M.  De  Rossi,  of  Parma,  have  fully  "ascertained  the  integrity 
of  the  sacred  Hebrew  text."  Not  one  item  touching  "doctrine, 
moral  precepts,  and  historical  relations,"  is  injured,  far  less  in- 
validated by  the  Variae  Lectiones.  And  to  give  some  idea  of 
the  pains  taken  by  these  Hebrew  scholars,  Kennicot  has  given 
a  catalogue  of  a  hundred  Hebrew  manuscripts  in  the  libraries  of 
Oxford,  Cambridge,  and  the  British  Museum.  And  M.  De  Rossi 
collated  479  Hebrew  manuscripts,  and  283  printed  editions  ! 
And,  finally,  I  shall  quote,  in  reply  to  you,  the  words  of  Jerom. 
Lib.  8.  com.  in  Esaiam: — "Si  quis  dixerit,"  &c.  If  any  one  shall 
iay  that  the    Hebrew   books  were    afterwards   corrupted  by  the 


18^ 

Jews,  let  him  hear  Orlgen,  what  he  answers,  in  the  8th  volume 
of  his  explanations  of  *'  Esay,"  &c.  Again — '^  But  if  they  say 
that  the  Hebrews  falsified  them  after  the  coming  of  Christ  and 
the  preaching  of  the  Apostles,  I  cannot  hold  from  laughter,  that 
our  Saviour  and  his  Apostles  should  so  cite  testimonies  or  Scrip- 
ture, as  the  Jews  would  afterwards  deprave  them,"  &c.  See 
also  Bishop  Hall,  p.  589.  And  the  famous  saying  of  Reuchlime, 
and  Jerome  (ad vers.  Helvidium]  ought  to  be  well  known  to 
you  ; — The  Hebrews  drink  of  the  well  head  :  the  Greeks  of  the 
•stream  ;   and  the  Latins  of  the  puddle  !" 

I  remember,  that,  in  one  of  our  Protestant  debates,  Dr. 
Power  raised  his  hand  toward  Heaven,  and  made  an  appeal  to 
God,  that  he,  and  his  clerical  friends,  did  earnestly  enc(jurage 
his  people,  the  laity,  to  read  the  Holy  Scriptures  ;  that  is,  in  the 
English  language  !     Now,  gentlemen,  will  you  affirm  that  there 

IS  ANY  ONE  VERSION  OF  THE  BiBLE,  IN  EnGLISH,  THAT  IS  AU- 
THORISED BY  THE  Pope,  or  the  Church'?  I  defy  you  to  answer 
in  the  affirmative  !  And  if  not,  where  was  Dr.  Power's  faith 
and  honesty,  in  that  awfully  solemn  appeal !  I  shall  wait  a  reply 
to  this:  and  again  defy  you  to  answer  in  the  affirmative.  I 
know  you  dare  not. 

V.  You  have  no  unanimous  consent  of  the  fathers ;  but  the 
greatest  and  best  of  them  are  against  your  infallible  Rule  ; 
and  in  favor  of  our  Protestant  Rule.     This  is  a  matter  of  history. 

Augustine  says  : — "  The  city  of  God  detests  doubts  as  the 
madness  of  the  Academicians.  For  she  believes  the  sacred 
Scriptures  both  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  which  we  call 
canonical  ;  whence  our  faith  is  derived,  whereby  the  just  live  ; 
and  by  means  of  which  we  walk  without  wavering.  Civ.  Dei. 
lib.  19.  c.  18  vol.  7,  Paris  edition  of  1685. 

Again: — "  Who  is  ignorant  that  the  canonical  Scriptures  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testament  are  contained  within  certain  limits; 
and  that  it  is  to  be  preferred  to  all  the  subsequent  writings  of 
bishops  ;  so  that  no  one  can  doubt,  or  dispute  concerning  it, 
whether  whatsoever  written  in  it  be  true  and  right."  On  Bap- 
tism against  the  Donatists. 

Again  :  "  In  things  w^hich  are  openly  set  forth  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, those  things  are  to  be  found  which  comprise  faith  and 
moral  conduct."  On  Chr.  Doctr.  vol.  iii.  1.  2.  c.  ix.  Again  : — 
"  There  nre  undoubtedly  books  of  the  Lord,  whose  authority 
both  of  us  acknowledge;  which  we  mutually  believe  and  obey. 
Here  let  us  seek  the  church  :  there  let  us  discuss  our  doctrines, 
&c.  "  I  will  not  have  the  holy  church  :  proved  by  human  do- 
cuments, but  by  the  Divine  oracles."  Tom.  ix.  p.  341.  Again. 
"  Read  these  things  to  us  from  the  law,  the  i'rophets,  the  Psalms, 


18S 

the  gospels,  the  apostolical  writings  ;  read,  and  wc  will  believe." 
Do.  cap.  6.  Again  in  his  Tract,  ii.  in  Epist.  John,  lie  says;*' Against 
treacherous  errors  God  would  place  our  strength  in  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  against  which,  none  that  would  any  way,  seem  a  Christian, 
dares  to  speak."  I  beg  the  particular  attention  of  you  all,  gen- 
tlemen, to  these  last  words  of  one  of  your  own  saints  !  And, 
finally,  I  refer  to  this  famous  testimony  of  Augustine  : — "  whe- 
ther the  Donatisls  held  the  church  non  nisi  divinarum,  ifcc.  let 
them  only  show  by  the  canonical  books  of  Scripture.  For  nei- 
ther do  we  say  they  should  believe  us,  that  we  are  in  the  Church 
of  God,  because  Optatus  or  Ambrose  had  commended  this  church 
unto  us,  which  we  now  hold  :  or  because  it  is  acknowledged  by 
the  councils  of  our  fellow  teachers  ;  or  because  so  great  mira- 
cles are  done  in  it:  it  is  not,  therefore,  manifested  to  be  true, 
and  catholic.  But  it  is  the  will  of  Christ  that  his  disciples 
should  be  confirmed  by  the  testimony  of  the  law  and  prophets.. 
These  are  the  rules  of  our  cause  :  these  are  the  foundations:  these 
are  the  confirmations."  Aug.  in  Psalm  69.  Bishop  Hall,  p.  592^ 
folio. 

The  great  Jerome  thus  writes  : — "  The  Church  of  Christ  who- 
has  Churches  in  the  whole  world,  is  united  by  the  unity  of  the 
Spirit;  and  has  the  cities  of  the  law  ;  the  Prophets  and  the  Gos- 
pel and  the  Apostles  :  she  has  not  gone  forth  from  her  bounda- 
ries, id  est,  &c.  that  is,  from  the  Holy  Scriptures."  Tom.  v.  p. 
331.  Paris  edit,  of  1602.  Again:—"  But  the  word  of  God 
smiteth  the  other  things,  which  they  spontaneously  discover,  and 
feign,  as  it  were,  by  an  apostolical  authority,  without  the  au- 
thority and  testimony  in  Scripture."  Comment,  in  Hag.  c.  I 
Tom.  5.  p.  506.  1'his  testimony  of  Jerome  strikes  your  Rule 
dead  !  Again  : — "  The  Lord  will  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  peo- 
ple :  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  :  which  are  read  to  the  people,  with 
the  intent  that  all  may  understand  it  "  "  As  the  Apostles  wrote, 
so  also  the  Lord  hath  spoken  ;  that  is,  by  the  Gospels  ;  not  in 
order  that  a  few,  but  that  all  may  understand."  "  The  chiefs 
(principles)  of  the  church,  and  the  chiefs  of  Christ  did  not  write 
to  a  few,  but  to  the  whole  people."  And  see  what  he  says  of 
the  princes,  that  is,  of  the  Apostles,  and  Evangelists  who  were 
in  her.  He  says,  who  were,  not  are  so:  that,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  Apostles,  whatsoever  should  afterwards  be  said, 
should  be  afterwards  cut  ofi':  should  henceforth  have  no  authori- 
ty.    Com.  in  Ps.  vol,  7.  p.  259.  Paris  edit,  of  1602. 

In  vol.  3.  lib*  24  :  and  in  vol.  9.  p.  1S6,  Jerome  mentions  the 
books  of  the  Apocrypha  ;  and  declares  them  not  of  the  canon  ; 
and  "  not  to  be  brought  forward  for  the  confirmation  of  faith." 

Another  of  your  saints,  I  mean  Chrysosthom,  is  completely 
pitted  against  you  :  he  and  padre  Levins  are  at  perfect  antipodes 


1^4 

of  this  point.  And  is  there  one  intelligent  Catholic  gentleman 
who  will  prefer  the  wild  effusions  of  padre  Levins,  to  St.  Chrys- 
oslhom  ?  "I  always  exhort,  and  will  never  cease  to  exhort 
yoUj  that  you  will  not  only  attend  to  the  things  spoken  to  you 
here;  but  when  you  are  at  home,  you  continually  busy  yourselves 
in  reading  the  Holy  Scriptures  ;  which  practice  also,  1  have  not 
ceased  to  drive  into  them  which  come  privately  to  me."  Homil. 
2  De  Lazar. 

Again  : — "  Snyest  thou,  O,  man,  it  is  not  for  thee  to  turn  over 
the  Scriptures,  who  are  distracted  with  cares'?  JVay,  it  is  for 
thee,  more  than  for  them,  &c."  This  great  preacher  then  goes 
on  to  answer  the  people's  objections  that  they  could  not  well 
understand  the  Bible.  Now,  behold  how  much  the  tables  are 
turned  by  the  modern  innovations  of  Popery  ; — '*The  Spirit  of 
God  has  so  dispensed  this  word,  that  publicans,  fishers,  tent- 
makers,  shepherds,  goat  herds,  (aipolous)  and  even  idiotai,  the 
the  most  illiterate  men  may  be  saved  by  these  books.  Homil. 
in  Genes.  29.  And  1  shall  add  out  of  his  Homily  ninth  on 
Colossians  ; — '•  Hear,  I  beseech  you,  all  ye  secular  men  j  provide 
for  yourselves  Bibles,  which  are  the  medicines  for  the  soul  :  at 
Itast  get  the  New  Testament."  Again: — ''All  things  are  in- 
telligible and  straight  in  the  divine  Scriptures  :  all  things  that 
are  necessary,  are  clear."  Hom.  3.  on  2.  Thessal.  ii.  Again  : 
— *'  Ignorance  of  the  Scriptures  is  the  cause  of  all  evils."  Hom. 
9.  on  Colos.  3.  And  finally  :  "  The  knowledge  of  the  Holy 
Bible  is  a  powerful  defence  against  sin;  while  an  ignorance  of 
it  is  a  deep  precipice,  a  profound  gulph  !  It  is  a  great  betray- 
ing of  salvation  to  know^  nothing  of  the  divine  law  :  It  is  this 
ignorance  which  has  given  birth  to  heresies  !  They  have  oc- 
casioned the  corruption  of  morals."     Third  Serm.  on  Lazar. 

I  have  copied  thus  fully  from  this  great  and  beautiful  Greek 
writer  ;  because  padre  Levins  seemed  to  insinuate  my  ignorance 
of  him  ;  and  boasted  rather  unseasonably  of  his  own  acquaint- 
ance with  him!     Does  padre  Levins  read  Greek  'I 

Athanasius  thus  writes; — "H  ye  are  disciples  of  the  gospel, 
speak  not  unrighteously  against  God  ;  but  walk  in  the  things  that 
are  written.  But  if  you  will  speak  any  thing  besides  that  which  is 
written,  why  do  you  contend  against  us,  who  are  determined 
neither  to  hear,  nor  to  speak  any  thing  but  that  which  is  written  ? 
The  Lord  himself  says,  if  ye  continue  in  my  word,  ye  are  truly 
free  !"     On  the  Incarn,  of  Christ  Paris  Edit,  of  1620. 

Once  more  : — "For  the  holy  and  divinely  inspired  Scriptures 
are  of  themselves  sufficient  for  the  discovery  of  truth."  Speech, 
against  the  Gent.  Paris  Edit.  And  permit  me  to  add  that  this 
father  who  flourished  from  A.  D.  335— o40j  has  given  us  a  list  of 


217 

If  you  look  for  authority,  the  world  is  greater  than  a  city  (Rome.) 
Wheresoever  a  Bishop  is,  whether  at  Rome,  or  Constantinople,  or 
Alexandria,  or  Tanais,  he  is  of  the  same  worth  (or  authority)  and 
the  same  priesthood.''  "But  all  arc  successors  of  tlic  Apostles. 
Why  do  vou  produce  to  me  the  customs  of  one  city?"  To  Evagr. 
Tom.  ii.  p.  510.  Paris  edit,  of  1G02. 

Again,  here  is  "a  stinger"  from  your  St.  Jerome.  "Bishops 
should  remember  that  they  are  greater  than  Elders  (Presbyters,) 
rather  by  custom,  than  by  truth  of  the  Lord's  appointment:  and 
that  they  ought  to  rule  the  church  in  common."  On  Titus  Lib.  i. 
cap.  i. 

Hear  Theodore's  memorable  words : — "  Christ  alone  is  head  of 
all :  but  the  Church  in  his  body;  and  the  Saints  are  the  members 
ofhis  body;  one  is  the  neck;  another  the  feet;"  "By  his  legs  un- 
derstand St.  Peter,  the  first  of  the  Apostles."  On  Sol.  Song.  Par. 
Lat.  edit.  1608.  So  far  from  making  Peter  the  head,  he  is  con- 
sidered the  legs,  which  are  supported  by  the  feet,  as  you  well 
know ! 

Then  there  is  Tertullian's  famous  sentence,  which  your  Romish 
writers  have  mangled  so  scandalously — supposing  that  we  ignor- 
ant heretics,  had  not  seen,  nor  read  that  honest  witness  against 
your  supremacy.  "Survey  the  apostolical  churches,  in  which 
the  very  chairs  of  the  apostles  still  preside  over  their  stations ;  in 
which  their  own  epistles  are  recited,  uttering  the  voice  ;  and  repre- 
senting the  presence  of  each  of  them!  Is  AcJiaia  nearest  to  thee, 
thou  hast  Corinth.  If  thou  art  not  far  from  Macedonia,  thou  hast  the 
Phrlippians  and  the  Thessalonians.  If  thou  canst  go  to  Asia,  thou 
hast  Ephesus.  If  thou  art  near  Italy,  thou  hast  Rome,  whence  to 
us,  also,  authority  is  near  at  hand."  Pras.  adv.  Her.  Cap.  36,  p. 
215.  Paris  edit.  1675.  Now  it  is  a  notable  circumstance,  that  the 
Romish  writers,  when  they  quote  out  of  TertuUian,  leave  all  out 
that  is  put  here  in  italics ;  namely,  all  but  the  last  sentence,  touch- 
ing Rome  i !  Mr.  Hughes,  of  Philadelphia,  had  his  scourging  lately 
for  doing  this  ! 

I  shall  gratify  you,  gentleman,  with  one  refreshing  quotation 
more.  And  if  you  do  not  give  up  your  Pope's  supremacy  as  uni- 
versal Bishop,  then  on  your  own  principles,  are  you  the  most  ob- 
stinate heretics.  For  I  quote  from  your  own  infallible  and  holy 
Pope, and  one  whom  )0u  have  deified  too,  and  do  invoke  with  in- 
cense, prayers  and  holy  wrestlings ;  I  mean  Pope  St.  Gregory. 
Padre  Levins  very  gravely  tells  us  that  he  loves  antiquities,  and 
all  old  things — were  it  even  like  "  Holy  Mother,"  a  very  old  sin- 
ner! Well,  you  must  know,  that  a  Bishop  of  the  Greek  Church, 
first  claimed  supremacy,  and  the  honor  of  universal  Bishop  ;  until 
the  Fathers  of  Rome,  pretty  honest  men  at  that  time,  rebuked  his 
iniquity,  and  shamed  him  out  of  it.  Now  hear  the  infallible  Pope 
28. 


218 

and  Saint  Gregory — who  wrote'this  in  the  close  of  the  6th  century, 
namely  590.  Having  shown  that  Peter,  and  Paul,  and  John  were 
all  members  under  one  head  he  says:  "No  one  desired  to  call  him- 
self the  universal,  or  universal  Bishop."  See  Regist.  Epist.  Lib. 
5,  p.  743,  Tom.  ii. 

Again,  for  this  is  too  good  to  be  quitted  by  me :  "  I  do  confi- 
dently say  that  whosoever  called  himself  universal  Bishop  ;  or  de- 
sires to  be  called  so,  in  his  pride,  is  the  forerunner  of  anti-christ. 
Because  in  his  pride  he  prefers  himself  to  the  rest ;  and  he  is  con- 
ducted to  error,  by  a  similar  pride.  For  as  the  wicked  one  wishes 
to  appear  a  God  above  all  men ;  so  whosoever  he  is,  who  desires 
to  be  called  the  only  Bishop  (solus  sacerds)  extols  himself  above 
all  other  Bishops."  Lib.  7.  Indict.  Epist.  15.  edit,  of  Paris, 
1705. 

Once  more,  for  this  is  delectable :  In  his  eulogy  to  the  Bishop 
of  Alexandria  he  solemnly  affirms  "that  the  primacy  of  Peter  de- 
scended to  three  Sees ;  namely,  Antioch,  Alexandria,  and  Rome.'* 
Tom.  ii.  p.  887.  Paris  edit. 

Once  more  ;  for  I  am  determined  that  Pope  St.  Gregory,  if  possi- 
ble, shall  save  you  from  the  mortal  sin  of  holding  the  Roman  Pope's 
supremacy.  Hear  the  holy  saint:  "  If  any  one  in  that  church 
assumes  that  name,"  he  was  speaking  of  universal  Bishop,  "  which 
in  the  opinion  of  all  good  men  he  (his  rival  in  the  East)  has  done ; 
then  the  whole  church;  (may  it  never  happen,)  falls  from  its  state, 
when  he,  who  is  called  universal,  falls.  But  let  that  name  of  blas- 
phemy be  absent  from  the  hearts  of  Christians ;  which,  when  it 
is  really  assumed  by  one,  the  honor  of  all  priests  is  taken  away," 
Regist.  Epist. ;  Lib.  5  ;  Indie.  13  ;  Epist.  20.  Paris  edit.  1705. 

Thus  I  have  proved  by  arguments  and  testimony  from  your 
own  church,  that  the  supremacy,  and  infamous  usurpation  of 
power  by  your  Pope,  is  a  novelty  in  the  Christian  world.  It 
was  not  fully  gained  by  the  "man  of  sin"  until  the  consumma- 
tion of  truth's  overthrow,  in  the  darkest  hour  of  the  darkest 
ages. 

Second;  The  invocation  of  Saints,  is  a  novelty  introduced 
by  the  "man  of  sin"  also.  This  originated  in  those  bold  and  figu- 
rative expressions,  and  the  apostrophising  of  the  departed  mar- 
tyrs, common  among  declamatory  preachers.  Invocation  of  saints 
began  to  show  itself  sometime  after  the  beginning  of  the  third 
century.  It  was  violently  opposed  by  the  truly  faithful,  until  the 
seventh  century :  and  finally,  it  was  established,  in  spite  of  all  op- 
position, only  in  the  9th  century,  when  the  church  was  driven  into 
the  wilderness. 

We  have  the  testimony  of  St.  Augustine  against  you  on  this 
point.    "  He  is  the  High  Priest  who  has  entered  within  the  veil ; 


219 

and  who  alone  of  those  who  have  appeared  in  llie  flesh,  does 
intercede  for  us."  On  Psahns  Ixiv.  vol.  2.  p.  G33.  Bened.  edit.  Paris 
1685. 

Athanasius,  in  340,  is  also  against  you:  "God  only  is  to  be  wor- 
shipped; and  angels  themselves  are  aware  of  this;  they  arc  all 
creatures  ;  and  are  not  to  be  worshipped  ;  but  are  beings  who  do 
W'orship  God."     Third  Orat.  against  Arians;  Par.  edit.  1G27, 

Theodoret,  in  451,  saj-s:  "The  council  of  Laodicea  also  follow- 
ing this  rule,  and  desiring  to  heal  that  old  disease,  made  a  law,  that 
people  should  not  pray  to  angels ;  nor  forsake  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ."     On  Colos.  3  chap.  Paris  edit.  Lat.  1G08. 

St.  Chrysostom  declared  [in  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century,] 
that,  "there  was  no  need  for  minor  intercessors  with  God."' — 
"With  God  it  is  not  thus  ;  for  there  is  no  need  of  intercessors  for 
the  petitioners ;  neither  is  he  so  ready  to  give  a  gracious  an- 
swer, when  entreated  by  others ;  as  by  ourselves  praying  to  him." 
On  Math,  cited  by  Theod.  Eclog.  &c. 

More  full  is  this  saint  on  that  passage  of  "sending  away  the 
woman  of  Canaan."  "Mark  the  philosophy  of  the  woman  ;  she 
entreats  not  James,  nor  John,  nor  comes  she  to  Peter  ;  she  breaks 
through  the  whole  company  of  them;  and  saying,  I  have  no  need 
of  a  mediator  ;  but  taking  repentance  as  a  spokes  woman,  I  come 
to  the  fountain  itself.  I  have  no  need  of  a  mediator  ;  have  thou 
mercy  on  me."  See  his  Disc,  on  this  part  of  Math.  ch.  15.  Paris 
edit,  1G21. 

Gregory  Nysen  denounces  creature  invocation:  "Moses  and 
the  tables,  and  the  law,  and  the  prophets,  the  gospel,  the  decrees 
of  all  the  Apostles  forbid  equally,   our  looking  to  the   creature." 

"The  w^ord  of  God  has  ordained  that  none  of  those  things  which 
have  their  being  by  creation,  shall  be  worshipped  by  men  ;  (Se- 
basmion)  that  is  venerated  by  prayers  or  prayed  to."  See  his  4 
Orat.  in  Eunom.  Tom.  11.  p.  144.  Paris  edit.  cic.  iccxv. 

I  shall  only  add  Epiphanius  of  A.  D.  336.  He  is  a  strong  wit- 
ness against  the  atheism  of  saint  worship,  or  invocation.  "A^eith- 
er  is  Elias  to  be  w^orshipped,  although  he  were  alive,  nor  is  John 
to  be  worshipped,  [proskunetos]  bowed  down  before  and  prayed 
to — Nor  is  Theela,  or  any  of  the  saints  to  be  worshipped,  [bowed 
down  before,  or  prayed  to.]  For  that  ancient  error  shall  not 
prevail  over  us  of  forsaking  the  living  god  ;  and  of  worshipping 
creatures.  For  they  worshipped  and  served  the  creature  more 
than  the  Creator,  and  became  fools.  For  if  an  angel  will  not  be 
worshipped,  how  much  more  will  not  she  (the  Virgin  Mary)  who 
was  born  of  Anna?"  See  his  book  against  the  heretics  79  n 
443.  '  ^* 

Now,  will  you  permit  me  to  refresh  your  consciences,  gentle- 
men, with  the  contrast  of  Romanism  with  this  primitive  Christian- 


220 

ity  of  the  Fathers?  In  face  of  the  Holy  Bible  in  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  commands  us  not  to  pray  to,  or  worship  creatures,  in  the 
face  of  testimony  of  Councils,  by  the  sainted  fathers,  you  thus 
pray ; — "O  Holy  Mary  ! — obtain  for  us  by  thy  intercession,  light 
to  know  the  great  benefit  which  Christ  has  bestowed  on  us. " 
"O  Holy  Virgin,  obtain  for  us  by  thy  intercession,  that  our  hearts 
may  be  so  visited  by  thy  Holy  Son,  &c."  "O  most  pure  Mother 
of  God!" — What  revolting  blasphemy!  God's  Mother  ! !  Mother 
of  God! !  Paganism  never  breathed  such  Atheism.  God  has 
NO   MOTHER  1      The  infinite  and    invisible    beiivg,  God,    has    no 


MOTHER 


What  a  most  brutish  mind  conceived  this  idea  !  What  a  bru- 
talizing prayer  this  is,  to  teach  men  !  Christ  our  mediator,  as 
7nanh3.d  mother;  but  as  God,  he  had  no  mother.  But  I  go  on. — 
"O  Mother  of  God,  we  beseech  thee,  obtain  for  us,  by  thy  inter- 
cession, grace  to  lead  pure  and  holy  lives,  &c."  Again:  "O 
most  blessed  Virgin,  graciously  vouchsafe  to  help  us  to  accom- 
plish the  work  of  our  salvation,  by  thy  powerful  intercession  ! — 
Amen."  See  Dr.  John  Power's  Catholic  Manual ;  Rosary  of  the 
B.  Virgin. 

The  following  I  copy  from  "the  Roman  Catholic  prayer  book, 
or  devout  Christian's  Fade  Mecum.'"  It  will  be  seen  how  Dr. 
Power,  and  the  Philadelphia  book  differ  in  translating  the  same 
passage.  Will  the  Bishops  not  take  care,  and  look  after  such 
Pope-daring  innovations  ! — "O  most  blessed  Virgin,  graciously 
vouchsafe  to  negociate  for,  and  with  us,  the  work  of  our  salvation, 
by  thy  powerful  intercession  !  Amen." 

Again  ;  "Confiding  in  thy  goodness  and  mercy,  I  cast  myself 
at  thy  sacred  feet,  and  do  most  humbly  supphcate  thee,  O  Mother 
of  the  eternal  Word,  to  adopt  me  as  thy  child  ;  and  take  upon 
thee,  the  care  of  my  salvation."  "O  God,  grant,  we  beseech  thee, 
by  the  Virgin  Mary,  his  mother,  that  we  may  receive  the  joys  of 
eternal  life,  by  the  same  Christ  our  Lord." 

I  copy  the  following  from  the  Litany  of  our  Lady  of  Lorretto. 
— The  Litany  means  a  solemn  supplicatory  prayer.  "Holy  Mo- 
ther of  God,  pray  for  us  ! — Mother  of  our  Creator,  pray  for  us  ! — 
Mother  of  our  Redeemer  pray  for  us  !— Mirror  of  Justice ! 
pray  for  us! — Seat  of  wisdom,  pray  for  us  !  Ark  of  the  covenant, 
pray  for  us — Gate  of  heaven,  pray  for  us!  Refuge  ol  sinners, 
pray  for  us  !  &c.  &c." 

But  this  is  not  the  worst;  one  thing  I  am  prepared  to  show 
that  the  various  Roman  works  which  appear  in  English,  are  de- 
signed to  impose  on  Protestants,  and  to  conceal  the  real  doctrines 
of  Rome.  Only  look  into  their  Latin  books, — there  you  behold 
their  frightful  idolatry,  in  its  full  growth,  and  perfection.  Here 
is  a  specimen :  Holy   Mother,— Ora  patrem,  jube  filio,— pray  io 


221 

the  father  for  us,  and  command  thy  son,  &c."  Again  : — "0  fehx 
puerpera,  nostra  plans  scelera,  jure  matris  impera  Redemptori!  O 
happy  Mother,  atoning  for  our  crimes,  lay  thy  commands  on  the 
Redeemer,  in  riglit  of  thy  being  his  Mother."  And  to  consum- 
mate what  all  heathenisni  never  conceived,  in  their  comparative 
piety,  a  Roman  saint,  namely,  Bonaventura,  whom  the  pious  and 
faithful  do  worship  on  July  14  annually,™has  gone  over  the 
Psalms  of  David  ;  has  stricken  out  Lord,  God,  &c.  and  has  in- 
serted Holy  Mother,  our  Lady,  &c.  Thus  :  "In  thee,  O  Lady,  do 
I  put  my  trust,  &c." — "Let  our  Lady  arise  :  let  her  enemies  be 
scattered,  &c."  "O  come  let  us  sing  unto  our  Lady :  and  make 
a  joyful  noise  unto  the  queen  of  our  salvation!!"  Psalm  110. 
"The  Lord  said  unto  my  Lady,  sit  thou  on  my  right  hand,  &c. 
&c.  !  !  !  [Sec.  Bonav.  psalt.  of  the  B.  Virgin  ;  his  works,  Tom. 
vii.  Rom.  edit,  of  1588.  And  Hist.  Sec.  Char.  August,  de  Comer. 
B.  M.  Virg.     And  Morn.  Ex.  p.  523 

And,  lest  these  may  be  deemed  too  antiquated,  I  shall  show 
that,  in  all  that  is  idolatrous  and  wicked,  the  Romish  Church 
is  immutable.  The  present  Pope,  Gregory  XVI.  in  the  Circular 
sent  forth  on  his  entering  upon  his  office,  solemly  rendered  his 
adorations  to  the  Holy  Virgin  ;  and  calls  upon  all  the  Clergy  to 
implore, — "that  bHE  who  has  been  in  every  calamity,  our  Patron 
and  Protectress  may  w^atch  over  us, — and  lead  our  minds,  by 
her  heavenly  influence,  to  those  counsels  which  may  prove  most 
salutary  to  Christ's  flock."  "That  all  may  have  a  happy  and  suc- 
cessful issue,  let  us  raise  our  eyes  to  the  Most  Blessed  Virgin 
Mary ;  who  alone  destroys  heresies  !  Who  is  our  greatest 
HOPE  !  Yea  the  entire  ground  of  our  hope  I"  See  Laity's 
Directory,    1833. 

Third  : — The  use  of  images  in  the  churches  is  a  novelty.  Here 
1  must  be  brief  The  best  of  the  fathers  condemn  the  use  of  images: 
one  Council  in  A.  D.  300  condemn  the  use  of  pictures  in  churches. 
In  700  the  Council  of  Constantinople  solemnly  condemned  them: 
and  ordered  their  expulsion  from  the  churches.  In  754  the 
seventh  Greek  General  Council  solemnly  condemned  image  use 
and  worship.  About  the  ninth  century  this  idolatry  seems  to 
have  been  established. 

Fourth: — the  doctrite  of  Purgatory  is  a  mere  novelty.  I  shall, 
in  due  time,  if  requisite,  produce  nine  of  thebest  fathers  against  it, 
with  St.  Augustine  at  their  head.  It  is  most  manifestly  borrowed 
from  the  pagan  fire  purification  of  souls.  And  it  has  been  a  terri- 
fic screw  in  sacerdotal  hands  to  extract  from  trembling  mortals, 
more  money,  than,  perhaps,  all  the  African  slave  trade  ever  lias 
accumulated !  These  two  evils,  namely,  slavery  and  the  Priests' 
fiction  of  purgatory,  have  been  permitted  by  the  wrath  of  Heaven 
to   be  let  in  upon   a   guilty  world  !     The   one   dealt   in  human 


222 

bones,  and  sinews,  and  blood ;  the  other,  as  St.  John  saw  in 
vision,  traded  in  human  souls  ! !  The  lust  of  gold  is  the  object  of 
both  !  This  golden  doctrine  of  Popery,  is  only  some  four  hundred 
years  old.  It  was  ultimately  established  in  Rome  by  the  Council 
of  Florence,  A.  D.  1430. 

Fifth: — Priests' Celibacy — that  capital  "old  bachelor's  joke," 
which  vexes  padre,  yes/ai/ier  Levins,  so  much.  This  is  a  diaboli- 
cal usurpation  of  freemen's  rights,  to  which  none  but  the  most 
heartless  of  the  species — men,  I  can  scarcely  call  them — have 
yielded  a  wicked  and  slavish  submission.  Every  priest  knows 
that  it  is  not  only  uncommanded  in  the  Bible ;  but  it  is  set  down  as 
a  striking  characteristic  mark  of  anti-christ.  The  great  apostacy 
from  Christianity,  was  to  be  known  by  "forbidding  to  marry  !  !" 
And  every  one  knows,  who  has  looked  into  history,  that  the  Pope 
Gregory  VII.  in  the  year  1674,  made  this  infamous  usurpation  on 
the  rights  of  man ;  and  took  away  marriage  from  the  priests.  So 
that  this  same  celibacy  of  priests  is  only  some  763  years 
old.  Before  that,  every  priest,  hke  other  honest  men,  had  his 
own  wife.  Since  that,  they  have  been  "holy  fathers"  without 
wives ! 

Sixth  and  Seventh: — Transubstantiation  and  the  Mass.  This 
grand  peculiarity  of  Popery  is  a  mere  novelty  also,  in  the  religious 
world,  not  only,  but  even  in  the  rational  world.  A  doctrine 
which  represents  the  priest's  creating  his  Creator ;  and  making  a 
wafer  to  be  really  the  human  flesh  of  Christ;  and  which,  there- 
fore, by  their  own  confession,  makes  men  cannibals  ! !  I  am  per- 
fectly grave,  gentlemen.  I  ask  you,  what  it  is,  in  the  wafer, 
when  you  put  it,  with  awful  solemnity,  on  the  tongue  of  the  hum- 
ble faithful?  You  reply  that  it  is  "the  flesh  and  blood  really  and 
truly  of  Christ's  human  nature."  Then  does  not  every  one  see 
that  they  eat,  and  swallow  down  human  flesh?  If  that  makes 
them  not  cannibals,  then  words  have  lost  their  meaning,  and  you 
have  lost  your  senses,  reason,  and  all ! ! 

Against  this  monstrous  and  most  disgusting  doctrine  of  the 
Mass,  I  can  produce  seventeen  of  your  early  and  best  fathers, 
namely  from  Ireneus  to  St.  Augustine.  It  began  about  the  middle 
of  the  fifth  century;  ripened  by  degrees  unto  the  ninth;  and 
along  with  Auricular  Confession,  with  all  the  mischief,  and  wick- 
edness, transubstantiation  and  the  mass  were  established  into  a  doc- 
trine of  the  church  by  the  decree  of  Pope  Innocent  III.  in  the 
fourth  Council  of  the  Lateran,  in  the  year  1215.  See  Mosh.  iii. 
p.  143.  Glas.  Edit.  And  hence,  they  may  be  said  to  be  618  years 
old  ! 

Eighth  :  The  taking  away  the  wine  or  holy  cup  in  the  sacra- 
ment of  the  Holy  Supper  is  a  novelty.    Pope  Gelasius  in  the  year 


223 

492,  pronounced  this  abstraction  of  the  cup  ''an  impious  sacri- 
lege."    See  Corp.  Juris  Can.  Pars  3,  Dist.  3. 

Ninth:  The  adoration  of  Relics  was  introduced  about  the 
same  time  with  the  invocation  of  sainti;  and  arose  from  the  per- 
version of  mementos,  or  keepsakes  left  ny  martyrs,  and  those  dear 
to  tiie  cliurch.  To  adore  rehcs,  or  venerate  them  rcHgiously  is 
to  adore  dust  and  ashes  !  So  says  St.  Augustine :  "Timeo  adorare 
terram,  &c.  I  tear  to  adore  earth  lest  He  (God)  condemn  me." 
The  Council  ofCarth.,  5,  Can.  14,  says:---"Placuit,  &c.  It  has 
pleased  us  to  request  the  most  renowned  emperor  that  relics  may 
be  taken  away,  not  only  such  as  are  kept  in  shrines,  and  images  ; 
but  in  what  place  soever,  woods,  or  trees."  Willet  p.  391.  So 
late  as  the  year  730  the  Synod,  or  Council,  summoned  by  the 
Emperor  Leo  III.  did,  with  only  one  dissenting  voice  decree  that 
*'the  worship  of  images  and  relics  was  mere  idolatry."  This  decree 
was  fully  enforced  by  Leo ;  and  the  churches  wxre  purified  effect- 
ually of  them.     See  Morn.  Exer.  p.  257  Lon.  edit. 

Tenth  and  last: — The  keeping  the  bible  in  a  dead  language, 

AND     REFUSING     THE  FREE  AND     UNLIMITED    PERUSAL    OF    God's    HoLV 

Word,  is  a  mere  novelty  in  the  church.  This  usurpation,  so  cha- 
racteristic of  ghostly  tyranny,  which  denies  to  the  laity  the  holy 
Bible  is  condemned  by  the  uniform  tenor  of  Scriptures.  And  I 
can  produce  thirteen  of  the  most  eminent  Greek  and  Latin  fa- 
thers, who  maintain  Scriptures  to  be  the  sufficient  Rule  of  Faith; 
and  who  insist  on  all  men  pei  using  and  studying  them.  Of  these 
the  most  prominent,  and  eloquently  persuasive,  are  St.  Augistine 
and  Chrysostom.  These  shall  be  produced,  if  the  priests  gainsay 
this. 

Thus,  I  trust,  I  have  succeeded  in  establishing  my  position  that 
Popery  characterised  by  these  peculiarities,  is  a  mere  novelty  in 
the  Christian  world. 

Where  was  your  religion  before  Luther?'  This  hackneyed 
question  put  by  Roman  Catholics,  has  been  answered  thus  : — 1st. 
By  a  counter  question, — "  Where  was  your  face  this  morning,  be- 
fore it  was  washed."  2d.  "  It  is  found,  where  your  religion  never 
can  be  found  ;  namely,  in  the  holy  Bible."  3d.  "  It  has  been  found 
in  that  unbroken  line  of  faithful  and  holy  men,  descended  from 
the  Italic  Church  ;  and  perpetrated,  in  the  line  of  the  Waldenses, 
Albigenses,  and  Lollards  ;  not  omitting  the  faithful  in  the  Greek, 
the  African,  and  old  Syriac  Churches. 

I  shall  conclude  this  letter  in  the  bold  words  of  Voctius,  to 
which  all   sound   and  intelligent  Christians  will  subscribe :     "In 

THE  first  six  HUNDRED  YEARS  OF  OUR  ERA,  THERE  WAS  NO  CHURCH, 
NO  ONE  DOCTOR,  NO  ONE  MARTYR,  NO  CONFESSOR,  NO  ONE  FAMILY,  NO 
ONE  MEMBER  OF    THE  CHURCH  ;     NEITHER  IN  THE  WeST,    NOR  IN     ANY 


224 

OTHER  PART    OF  THE  WORLD,  THAT  WAS  PROPERLY,    AND    FORMERLY    A 

Papist.         I  am,  gentlemen,  yours  truly,  &c. 

W.  C.  BROWNLEE, 

A  Minister  of  the  Collegiate  Middle  and  North  Dutch  Church, 
JVew  York,  May  14,  1833. 


Reply  of  JDrs.  l^ower  and    IjevinSj 

TO   DR.    BROWNLEE. 

No.  8. 

A  corrupt  man  loveth  not  one  that  reproveth  him:  nor  will  he  goto  the  wise.  Prov. — 15. 12. 

Rev.  Sir, — In  your  peregrinations  over  the  uphills  and  downhills 
of  life,  your  philosophic  mind  has  not,  probably,  been  idly  inatten- 
tive to  the  effects  often  produced  by  officious  friendship.  If  vigi- 
lant it  must  have  discovered  that  the  inteiference  of  an  officious 
friend  is  seldom  directed  by  prudence ;  and,  hence,  in  place  of 
conferring  benefit,  inflicts  real  injury  on  the  object  of  its  zeal.  It 
must  have  ascertained,  that,  often  it  were  better  to  encounter  the 
open  and  avowed  hostility  of  an  enemy  than  submit  to  the  inter- 
posing protection  of  a  good  natured  andrery  A:iW friend.  "Save 
me  from  my  friends"  is  registered  among  the  philosophic  sayings 
vulgarly  named  proverbs — of  a  grave  and  wise  people. 

Whether  you.  Rev.  Preacher  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church, 
have  ever  been  afflicted  with  the  evils  arising  out  of  officious 
friendship,  is  a  knowledge  not  very  interesting  to  us,  but  it  is  our 
opinion,  and  will,  we  are  sure,  be  seconded  by  the  judgment  of 
your  "Christian  public," — your  "  Protestant  Rule  of  Faith,"  may 
fitly  address  you  in  the  w^ords  of  the  proverb,  "  save  me  from  my 
friends."  Eight  long  and  tedious  letters  have  been  spun  by  the 
patent  machinery  of  "Protestant  lesson  and  logic"  from  your 
cranial  cobwebs — you  have  written  de  omni  scibile,  tilted  with 
every  weapon  in  the  rusted  armory  of  polemics  from  proofless 
assertion  to  gross  abuse,  from  the  dogmatic  ipse  dixit  to  the  ob- 
scene insinuation, from  the  faithless  quotation  to  the  more  faithless 
and  ribald  tale,  from  the  affected  lisping  of  the  sleek  Religionist 
to  the  shout  and  growl  of  the  pitch  and  brimstone  Puritan,' — yet 
your  unfortunate  Rule  of  Faith  is  still  unproven,  still  as  infirm 
in  the  strength  of  argument  as  the  imbecility  of  an  infant's  mind. 
Had  you  not,  in  an  evil  hour,  though  chivalously,  proclaimed 
your  "CHALLENGE,"  your  Rule  might  have  rested  in  obscurity,  and 
enjoyed  the  respect  which  obscurity,  at  times,  secures;  it  might 
have  excited  no  misgivings  in  the  minds  of  the  members  of  the 


193 

with  the  "Hebrew  and  Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost?"  The  use  of 
virulent  and  foul  terms  is  the  very  evidence  of  a  bad  cause,  the 
direct  proof  of  inabihty  to  defend  any  cause.  We  pity  the  heart 
which  gives  shelter  to  slanderous  invective, — the  Hock  you  edify 
as  a  Preaclier,  the  party  you  dishonor  as  their  "Writer,"  the 
virtuous  ladies  you  disgrace  as  their  "Gentleman !" 

In  your  letter.  No.  2,  you  alhrm  that  the  "question  touching 
your  Rule  is  of  infinite  importance,"  yet  its  importance  is  mock- 
ed, for  at  the  end  of  this  letter,  you  inform  "your  friends  you  were 
but  skirmishing."  This  was  a  strange  avowal  from  a  Religionist, 
who  professes  such  zealotry  of  adhesion  to  "Hebrew  and  Greek 
of  the  Holy  Ghost," — who  asserts  truth  to  be  his  object  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  controversial  topics.  His  letters.  No.  3,  and  4,  appear, 
and  still,  it  is  "skirmishing;"  the  proper  subject  at  issue  is  shunned, 
— he  avoids  the  question,  "How  do  you  know  the  Bible  to  be  the 
word  of  God?"  Whence  the  cause  of  this  delay?  Whence  the 
reluctance  to  enter  on  this  topic  of  "infinite  importance?"  Is  not 
this  an  evidence  of  inability  to  affix  a  rational  character  to  his 
creed?  You  saw  the  difficulty.  Rev.  Preacher,  involved  in  your 
Rule  of  Faith,  inseparable  from  it,  and  you  sought  the  trick  of 
procrastination,  supposing  it  would  be  allowed  to  retire  into  obli- 
vion. The  artifice,  however,  failed,  your  opponents  persevered, 
and  the  voice  of  your  "Christian  public"  forced  you  to  essay  an 
answer.  Your  challenge  was  accepted  by  your  antagonists  on 
the  31st  of  January, — and  your  first  direct  answers  to  their  im- 
portant and  vital  queries  is  dated  April  2d. !  Two  months  were 
employed  in  efforts  and  subterfuges  to  evade  the  real  question 
under  debate, — and  the  first  answer  is  nothing  but  a  series  of  as- 
sertions! There  is  ?io  proof,  no  form  of  proof ;  and,  yet,  the  logical 
Preacher  imagined  he  had  demonstrated  the  Bible  to  be  the  word 
of  God!  His  first  answer  is  given  by  his  antagonists  under  the 
form  of  sixteen  propositions,  and  the  proof"  of  each  proposition 
is  demanded.  The  "Writer"  a  second  time  essays,  but  the  form  of 
proof  is  still  wanting.  Like  Pelion  on  Ossa,  assertion  is  heaped  on 
assertion  ;  or,  like  Falstaft's  men  in  buckram,  they  multiply  under 
the  feUcitous  imagination  of  the  fabricator. 

We  ask  our  readers  is  not  this  a  fair  statement  of  the  real  and 
actual  progress  effected  in  the  present  controversy?  Let  the 
Preacher  rebut  this  statement  if  he  can.  At  the  end  of  January 
he  was  requested  to  state  his  Fule  of  Faith.  This  was  done.  He 
was  then  asked  to  prove  the  Bible  to  be  the  Word  of  God.  This 
is  yd  to  be  performed. — What  Doctor  Brown  lee  designates  proof 
is  mere  assertion, — unworthy  of  a  school-boy.  The  debility  of  his 
first  proof  is  admitted  by  his  attempt  to  amend  it.  His  second  proof 
is  a  repetition  of  his  first  assertions,  with  the  addition  of  others. 
Hence,  the  sixteen  propositions  remain  unproved ;  therefore,  he 
No.  13.^25 


194 

has  not  yet  demonstrated  that  the  Bible  is  the  Word  of  God: 
therefore,  he  has  not  yet  affixed  a  rational  character  to  his  Rule 
of  Faith;  therefore,  in  the  selection  of  his  religion  he  is  not  go- 
verned by  discretion ;  therefore,  his  faith  is  mere  human  opinion — 
therefore,  he  has  no  foundation  on  which  to  rest  his  hope  of  eter- 
nal salvation ! ! ! 

Where,  then,  most  logical  and  inspired  "Writer,"  to  the  Middle 
Dutch  Church,  where  are  the  arguments  to  which  you  alluded  at 
the  commencement  of  your  last  wondrous  letter?  You  have  not 
yet  proved  the  Bible  to  be  the  Word  of  God,  and  the  Bible,  by 
the  very  terms  of  your  Rule  of  Faith,  must  be  the  actual  foun- 
dation of  every  argument  you  logically  should  use.  In  a  former 
letter  you  alluded  to  a  visit  to  the  Philadelphia  Lunatic  Asylum : 
— a  second  might  counteract  the  aberrations  of  intellect  which 
still  appear  to  haunt  you.  You  speak  of  argument,  forsooth, 
ere  the  foundation  for  argument  belaid!  If  the  assertions  embo- 
died in  the  sixteen  propositions  be  argument,  then  they  are  such 

OS 

"Would  well  become 
A  woman's  story  at  a  winter's  fire." 

To  deceive  the  members  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church  and  your 
"Christian  public,"  you  assert  in  your  last  letter,  "we  have  not 
advanced  one  solitary  new  idea, — far  less  an  observation,  or  form 
of  reason,  bearing  against  my  last  arguments,"     Where  was  your 
sanity  of  mind  when  you  hazarded  this  ra^h  assertion?     Was  it 
under  the  tutelage  of  a  strait   waistcoat  in  the  wards  of  the 
Philadelphia  Lunatic  Asylum  ?   Do  you  imagine   your  "Christian 
public"  are  fools,  your  Members  of  the   Middle  Dutch  Church 
without  intelligence,  without  the  spirit  of  inquiry  and  investiga- 
tion ?  They  know,  as  well  as  you,  that  their  only  Rule  of  Faith  is  the 
Bible ;  they  know  and  are  convinced — for  the  conviction  rests  on 
the  exercise  of  the  merest  common  sense — that  unless  the  Bible 
be  proved  infallibly  to  be  the  word  of  God,  their  faith  is  as  the 
reed  in  the  marsh,  yielding  to  every  wind,  tremulous  under  every 
breath  of  air.     But  "there  was  no  observation,  no  form  of  reason 
in  our  last  letter  against  your  arguments!"     Was  it  not  shown  in 
our  last  that  you  did  not  prove  the^r^^  of  the  sixteen  propositions 
relatively  to  the  Bible  being  the  word  of  God?  You  did  not  prove 
any  of  them.     Did  we  not  show  your  form  of  proof  to  be  similar  to 
that  of  the  school-boy  referring  to  a  series  of  propositions  for  the 
proof  of  that  whose  demonstration  was  required,  and  then  request- 
ing his  examiner  to  see   Euclid,  as  you  ludicrously  wrote,  '^see 
Bishop  Newton  /"     Is  this  no  ^'observatio?i?^*     You  see  its  force,  and 
fear  to  attempt  its  refutation.     In  answering  the  second  proposi- 
tion, you  thus  wrote,  "I  know  the  Bible  to  be  the  word  of  God 
from  the  external  evidence  of  miracles  zvrotight  by  the  inspired 


195 

writers,  and  which  were  co?Huiued  down  to  the  time  of  St.  Austin, 
w/io  saw  some  wrought! ! !"  Did  wc  make  no  "observation"  on 
this  7ion  proofs  this  strange  assertion,  this  extraordinary  discovery? 
Were  you  not  asked,  most  veracious  Preacher,  who  w^as  the 
inspired  writer  livimr  and  performing;  miracles  down  to  the  time 
of  8t.  Austin  f  Is  not  this  an  observation'^  Why  have  you  not 
answered  our  query  I  Does  it  not  ''hear  against  your  last  arfrii- 
mcntsf  You  should  have  written,  logical  '' IVritcr,"^  your  last  asser- 
tions. The  miracles  icroug-ht  by  the  inspired  writers  are  n-ith  you, 
an  external  evidence  that  the  Bible  is  the  word  of  God ;  and,  ex 
abundanti,  it  is,  of  course,  an  evidence  that  what  was  written  by 
themselves,  especially,  is  a  part  of  the  word  of  God.  Attend,  now, 
and  mark  the  import  of  an  "observation"  expressed  in  our  last 
letter, — "Please,  also,  to  inform  us  wdiat  miracles  were  performed 
by  St.  Luke,  St.  Matthew,  St.  Judc.  Did  Solomon  perform  mira- 
cles V  Sec  our  last  letter,  No.  IG,  column  3.  You  are  strangely 
prone  to  misrepresentation.  Rev.  Preacher; — falsehood  is  the 
proper  word.  Adhesion  to  truth  is  no  dislionor  to  your  station, 
— it  does  not  degrade  either  the  "Gentleman"  or  the  "Writer." 
Is  it  no  "observation  bearing  against  your  last  arguments"  to 
inquire  wdiether  St.  I.uke,  &c.  performed  miracles?  Their  per- 
formance of  miracles  is  to  you  a  proof  ihtxt  what  they  wrote  is  the 
word  of  God ;  but  you  cannot  affirm  they  w^'ought  miracles,  for 
you  cannot  prove  it;  therefore,  you  cannot  prove  that  what  they 
wrote  is  the  word  of  God.  Will  you  again  assert  "we  did  not 
advance  one  observation  bearing  on  your  last  arguments?" 

You  also  stated  there  was  "  710  form  of  reaso?i  in  our  last  letter 
bearing  against  your  last  arguments !"  We  must  again,  Rev. 
Gentleman,  insert  the  "  hook  in  your  nose."  Did  you  not  in  your 
Letter,  No.  G,  essay  to  prove  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible,  by  re- 
ference to  authority,  and  did  we  not  exhibit  a  form  of  reason 
proving  this  reference  to  authority  an  amendment  of  your  Rule 
of  Faith?  Mark  your  words; — "  The  authors  of  each  of  the  books," 
writes  the  Preacher,  "  first  gave  evide?ice  before  the  church,  by 
working  miracles,  and  prophesying,  and  speaking  tongues,  that, 
they  wxre  the  accredited  messengers  of  God."  Having  quoted 
your  words,  our  "  form  of  reason"  was  thus  expressed. — "Without 
this  evidence  the  Doctor  w^ould  not  believe  the  Scriptures  to  be 
inspired.  But  this  evidence  he  has  from  the  testimony  of  the 
Church;  therefore,  without  the  testimony  of  the  Church  he  would 
not  believe  the  Scriptures  to  be  inspired."  Is  not  this  a  "  form 
of  reason?"  Is  it  not  logical?  You  vaunt  the  great  excellence 
of  your  Protestant  education,  your  "Protestant  lesson  and  logic." 
Test  its  temper  against  the  preceding  form  of  reason,  tlie  very 
form  of  Catholic  sound  words.  You  may  bite,  but  it  will  be  the 
viper  against  the  file.     Yet  farther  with  our  "  form  of  reason." 


196 

Immediately  after  the  preceding  syllogism,  was  said, — "  but  the 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  is  an  article  of  Christian  belief;  and 
to  this  belief  the  Doctor  could  not  be  brought  by  the  Scriptures 
alone.  Therefore  the  Scriptures  alone  are  not  a  sufficient  Rule 
of  Faith.— Q.  E.  D."     See  our  letter,  No.  6,  4th  column. 

Is  there  no  form  of  reason  here?  Does  it  not  radically  subvert 
your  Rule  of  Faith?  Your  rule  has  been  designedly  inserted 
in  this  letter  to  prevent  subterfuge  and  evasion,  and  that  the 
Members  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church  and  your  Christian  public 
might,  at  once,  recur  to  it.  What  does  this  Rule  say?  Why, 
that  "  the  only  Rule  of  Faith  with  every  Protestant  is  the  Holy 
Spirit  speaking  to  us  in  the  written  word  of  God,  the  Holy 
Scriptures"  Now  mark  our  form  of  reason  which  you  affirm  did 
not  exist  in  our  last  letter.  The  Holy  Scriptures  are  your  only 
Rule  of  Faith.  To  prove  the  Holy  Scriptures  to  be  the  word  of 
God,  you  have  recourse  to  the  testimony  of  the  Church,  for  you 
say  "  the  authors  of  each  of  these  books  Jirst  gave  evidence  before 
the  Church,  that  they  were  the  accredited  messengers  of  God." — 
Your  belief,  then,  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  the  word  of  God, 
is  founded  on  something  different  from  the  written  word  of  God, 
that  is,  the  testimony  of  the  Church,  therefore,  something  difierent 
from  the  written  word  of  God  is  also  a  part  of  your  Rule  of  Faith, 
— therefore  the  Holy  Scriptures  alone  are  not  your  Rule  of  Faith. 
Belief  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  is  with  you  an  article  of  Faith, — but 
this  article  of  Faith  does  not  rest  on  the  Scriptures  themselves ; 
you  rest  it  on  the  testimony  of  the  Church ;  therefore,  you  admit 
an  article  of  Faith  independent  of  the  authority  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures ; — Therefore,  the  Holy  Scriptures  alone  are  not  your 
Rule  of  Faith.  What  think  you  now,  inspired  Preacher,  of  your 
Rule  of  Faith.  What  think  you  of  "  our  form  of  reason?  Is  not 
your  Rule  torn  up  by  its  roots  and  scattered  to  the  winds?  Is  it 
not  like  the  bubble  blown  by  the  child  in  the  sport  of  infancy,  ffimsy 
and  hollow, — a  shell  around  vacuity,  but  without  a  tincture  of  the 
rainbow  coloring  which  gladdens  the  infant's  sight?  Did  we 
adduce  the  other  "  observations  and  forms  of  reason  against 
your  arguments"  contained  in  our  letter,  we  should  be  under  the 
necessity  of  repeating  it  as  printed.  We  refer  your  "Christian 
public"  to  it,  and  to  induce  them  to  study  our  '•  forms  of  reason," 
in  the  strength  of  the  firmest  conviction  we  assert  you  cannot 
refute  one  of  these  forms.  If  they  read,  as  argument  proof  should 
be  read,  free  from  prepossession  of  mind, — if  they  submit  it  to  the 
native  strength  of  their  own  understanding,  untainted  and  unbi- 
ased by  the  misrepresentation  and  interested  assertions  of  the 
Preacher, — if  they  cast  off  the  film  of  sectarian  prejudice  from 
their  sight,  and  view  the  question,  really  at  issue.  Dr.  Brownlee's 
Rule  of  Faith,  in  its  singleness  of  object,  there  is  no  candid,  impar- 


107 

tial,  and  educated  mind  but  will  admit,  that,  the  writer  of  the 
Middle  Dutch  Church  has  -not proved  his  Rule  of  Faith,  that  he  has 
abandoned  it,  that  the  Bible  alone  is  not  his  Rule,  that  lie  has  not 
proved  the  Bible  to  be  the  word  of  God. 

On  many  occasions  during  the  present  controversy  an  unpleas- 
ant task  has  been  imposed  on  us — the  exposition  of  studied  misre- 
presentation and  absolute  falsehood.  The  character  of  the  station 
occupied  by  our  polemic  adversary  should  have  been  a  surety 
against  this  dishonorable  subterfuge  in  the  discussion  of  any  topic, 
— certainly  in  that  of  religion.  But  it  appears,  and  the  admission 
must  be  made,  the  color  of  a  man's  coat,  monotonous  severity  of 
aspect,  longitudinal  dimension  of  visage,  are  as  fallacious  in  prov- 
ing the  possession  of  a  charitable  heart  and  honorable  rectitude  of 
will,  as  the  Preacher's  "Protestant  lesson  and  logic"  in  proving 
the  Protestant  Rule  of  Faith.  A  Preacher  may  assert  he  is 
charitable,  attached  to  truth,  and  logical ;  but,  then  a  three  months' 
drilling  in  controversial  "skirmishing"  and  "squinting"  has 
proved  the  Preacher's  assertioji  is  not  argnmetit.  As  little  propen- 
sity to  love  of  truth  and  common  sense  is  exhibited  in  his  last 
letter  as  in  the  early  numbers ;  and,  assuredly,  there  is  as  little  indi- 
cation of  the  "  form  of  sound  words"  on  his  Rule  of  Faith.  His 
intellect  is  not  manufactured  from  penetrable  stufl^; — it  is  as  guilt- 
less of  thought  and  argument  at  the  present  hour  as  when  it  exult- 
ed in  the  gasconade  of  "  cfiallexge"  against  his  opponents  We 
recommend  the  Italian  proverb  to  his  mental  keeping. 

"Chi  lava  la  testa  al  asino  perde  il  sapone: 

E  chi  predica  al  deserto  perde  il  sermone."  J 

If  it  pleases  him  better,  he  may  ponder  it  in  English 

"  To  change  poor  Brownlee,  do  not  hope, 

'Tis  vain  to  shave  an  Ass's  face, 

And  only  labor  to  misplace, 

And  loss  of  words,  indeed,  as  well  as  soap," 

Your  chivalrous  intrepidity.  Rev.  Gentleman,  in  false  assertions 
relatively  to  the  absence  of  "observation  and  Ibrm  of  reason 
bearing  against  your  last  argument"  in  our  last  letter  iias  already 
been  sufficiently  exposed.  We  do  not  envy  tlie  composuie  of 
mind  this  exposition  will  effect :  nor  does  it  excite  our  wonder  to 
find  the  corollary  of  this  false  and  reckless  assertion  thus  express- 
ed:— "This  being  the  case,  I  decline  setting  down,  any  more,  inu 
proof  of  our  Protestant  Rule  !"  Excellent, — worthy  of  the  gigantic 
Erudite  in  the  "Hebrew  and  Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost,'' — a  fine 
illustration  of  your  "  Protestant  lesson  and  logic !"  You  unblush- 
ingly  make  a/a/se  assertion,  and,  on  tlie  strength  of  this  assertion, 
decline  setting  down,  any  more,  your  proof  of  your  Protestant 
Rule  !"  It  is  hoped  the  members  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Chureji  will 
note  this  avoical  of  inability  to  prove  your  rule.     Will  you  say  it 


198 

la  not  an  avowal  of  an  inability, — not  a  disgraceful  shelter  from 
the  arguments  of  your  opponents?  Your  plea  for  declining  is 
founded  on  a  false  assertion,  it  is  your  excuse  for  declining  any 
further  discussion  on  your  rule  ! — hence,  your  avowal  to  decline, 
is  equivalent  to  a  formal  acknowledgment  of  defeat.  Since  you 
cannot,  then,  prove  your  Rule  of  Faith,  your  religion  is  irrational. 
Your  creed  is  the  dropsied  offspring  of  mere  human  opinion, — 
it  is  an  emanation  from  the  passions  of  earth, — it  is  too  gross  to 
ascend  above  earth's  exhalations, — it  cannot  elevate  human  hope 
to  the  Seraph's  abode, — it  cannot  console  on  earth,  it  cannot  say 
I  have  a  resting  place  in  Heaven !  Defeat,  discomfiture,  and 
rout,  this  is  a  bitter  and  gnawing  conviction.  Degraded,  dishon- 
ored, unpitied!  How  vanquished  gasconade  will  fret  its  heart  in 
sullenness  !  How  misery  will  ruminate  over  the  indiscretion  of 
CHALLENGE,  and  ycam  for  the  reputation  lost  and  the  pinnacle  from 
which  it  fell.  A  great  man  has  fallen  in  Israel !  Ye  choristers 
of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church,  muffle  your  tones  of  joy,  "  the  inspir- 
ed writer  of  Zion,  and  he  that  was  clothed  in  the  best  gold, — how 
is  he  esteemed  as  an  earthen  vessel!"  Ye  "  virtuous  ladies,"  chant 
the  requiem  of  jour  ge?itlemafi; — "  let  tears  run  down  like  a  torrent 
day  and  night:  Give  yourselves  no  rest,  and  let  not  the  apples  of 
your  eyes  cease!" 

Your  Rule  of  Faith,  Rev.  Doctor,  being  subverted,  annihilated, 
its  destiny  being  now  fixed,  it  is  matter  of  no  consequence  to  us, 
whether  or  not  "you  decline  setting  down,  any  more,  proof" — ■ 
With  the  estimate  the  members  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church 
may  form  of  your  resolution  we  shall  not  concern  ourselves; — they 
are  left  to  repose  on  their  own  thoughts.  But  your  determination 
to  decline  argument  on  this  vital  topic  shall  be  no  finger-post  for 
our  guidance.  Your  Rule  of  Faith  will  still  be  our  primary  theme. 
As  Prince  Henry  said  of  Falstaff's  exploit  on  Gadshill,  "  it  will 
be  argument  for  a  week,  laughter  for  a  month,  and  a  good  joke  for 
ever."  You  affirm  you  have  "  fully  established"  your  rule, — that 
the  Bible  is  the  word  of  God !  Where  ?  Jack  FalstafF,  to  prove 
that  he  had  slaughtered  the  rogue  in  Buckram,  hacked  his  sword 
and  cried  out,  "  ecce  sigmim.''^  Dr.  Brownlee,  when  asked  if  he 
had  proved  the  Bible  to  be  the  word  of  God,  exclaims,  "*See  Bishop 
JVewt07i  /" 

There  is  intrinsic  evidence  in  your  last  letter.  Rev.  Gentleman, 
that  there  has  been  a  muster  of  interior  spirits, — "white,  black,  > 
and  grey."  The  "friends"  to  whom  you  tendered  the  excuse  of 
skirmishing  in  an  earlier  letter,  have  come  to  your  aid.  The  re- 
veille has  been  beaten  on  the  drum  ecclesiastic.  The  work, 
however,  is  but  poorly  tesselated; — the  hand  of  the  artist  is  not 
there ; — the  joints  are  badly  set ; — the  dove-taihng  lacks  tenacity. 
Harmony  is  wanting— unity  is  absent— the  entire  structure  is 


199 

crazy.  The  dry  bones  over  which  you  and  your  Calvlnistic 
coadjutors  have  prophesied,  wriggle  in  their  sockets — their  am- 
bhng  is  unsteady, — in  the  words  of  Hotspur, 

"'Tis  like  the  forced  gait  of  a  sliufflingnag." 

Such  as  it  is,  we  shall  greet  its  leading  matter  whh  a  few 
remarks.  We  are  not  Deists,  not  Infidels ;  we  respect  and  obey 
the  Scriptures, — "whosoever  shall  force  thee  to  go  one  mile,"  says 
St.  Matthew,  "Go  with  them  other  two."     Matt.  v.  41. 

We  ]n-oved  your  Rule  of  Faith  to  be  apparently  contradictory, 
by  a  reference  to  the  2d  Book  of  Kings,  viii.  2G,  and  to  the  2d  Book 
of  Chronicles,  xxii.  2.  In  the  Book  of  Kings,  as  above  quoted,  it 
is  said,  that  Ahasiah  was  22  years  old  when  he  began  to  rei"-n ; 
and  in  the  Book  of  Chronicles  it  is  said  that  he  was  42  years 
old  when  he  began  to  reign.  You,  Rev.  Dr.,  have  argued,  as  if 
frenzied  with  victory,  againstour  Rule  of  Faith,  from  the  clashing 
of  Popes,  councils,  and  divines.  To  bring  you  to  sober  thinkino-, 
we  took  the  liberty  to  call  your  attention  to  the  apparent  contra- 
dictions, which  are  found,  in  not  a  few  instances,  in  your  Rule  of 
Faith,  and  concluded,  that,  if  our  Rule  is  to  be  rejected  on  the 
ground  of  imaginary  contradiction,  your  Rule  must  inevitably 
share  the  same  fate.  This  conclusion.  Rev.  Sir,  no  "Protestant 
lesson  or  logic"  will  ever  be  able  to  disprove.  We  had  also  ano- 
ther object  in  view ;  mark  it,  let  the  members  of  the  Middle  Dutch 
Church  mark  it.  In  pointing  out  some  of  the  apparently  contra- 
dictory texts  of  the  Bible,  we  were  convinced  that  Dr.  Brownlee 
believed  his  Rule  of  Faith  to  be  perfectly  consistent,  and  that  his 
proofs  would  be  given  in  all  the  fulness  of  an  erudite  in  the  "He- 
brew^ and  Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  We  have  not  been  disap- 
pointed. This  theologue,  whose  ''o?ili/  Rule  of  Faith  is  the  rvriitefi 
word  of  God,  afid  judge  of  controversy,  the  Holy  Ghost  speaki?iir  to 
us  in  it"  tells  that  this  rule  is  not  contradictory,  because  Bochart 
Whitby,  Lightfoot,  Jahn  and  Bug,  tell  him  there  is  no  contradiction 
to  be  found  in  the  passages  we  have  quoted.  Dr.  Brownlee 
believes  that  there  are  no  real  contradictory  passages  in  the 
Scriptures,  his  Rule  of  Faith.  Is  his  belief  of  this  point  founded 
on  the  Scriptures?  No,  it  rests  on  the  authority  of  Bochart, 
Lightfoot,  and  Bug.  Therefore,  the  Doctor's  "only  Rule  of  Faith 
is  not  the  icord  ofGod,^^  but  the  word  of  men  equally  fallible  as  him- 
self. We  now  call  on  the  Preacher  of  the  Middle  DutcJi  ChurcJi, 
to  produce  one  passage  of  holy  writ,  to  prove,  that  there  is  no 
contradiction,  in  the  ])laces  to  which  we  have  referred.  This  is 
the  radical  point.     This,  solely,  the  question. 

The  solutions  you  have  given  can  have  no  weight  with  you  or 
with  any  whose  "only  Rule  of  Faith  is  the  w^ord  of  God."  Your 
Rule  of  Faith  exhibits  you  as  one,  who  believes  nothing  in  religion, 
but  what  is  founded  on  the  word  of  God,  and  your  solutions  cxlii- 


200 

bit  you  as  believing  in  the  consistency  of  the  word  of  God,  on  the 
authority  of  Bochart,  Whitby,  Lightfooi,  &c.  &c.  This,  Rev« 
Sir,  is  reaUzing  the  fable  of  the  centaur.  The  monster,  it  is  said, 
blew  hot  and  cold  at  the  same  time:  Thus  we  dispose  of  the 
learned  labor  of  yourself  and  coadjutors,  and  "put  the  hook  in 
your  nose." 

In  the  second  part  of  your  .letter,  you  tell  us,  that  "the  appointed 
Ministry  of  Christ,  acting  and  ministering  in  his  name,  read 
and  expound  the  word."  Does  not  this  concession  involve  a  behef 
on  your  part,  that  the  people  are  bound  to  hear  and  receive  with 
docility,  what  the  "appointed  Ministry  of  Christ"  teaches  in  his 
name  ?  How,  then,  in  view  of  this  concession,  can  you  say,  that 
the  Scriptures  are  the  only  Rule  of  Faith?  Oh,  but  we  refer  the 
people  to  the  Scriptures,  we  tell  the  people  not  to  believe  us,  but 
to  believe  God,  says  Dr.  Brownlee.  But,  Rev.  Doctor,  how  can 
you  refer  the  people  to  the  Scriptures  for  the  belief  of  those  points 
of  Christian  Faith,  which  are  not  found  in  the  Scriptures,  such  as 
the  canonicity,  the  integrity,  and  inspiration  of  the  Books  of 
Scriptures  ?  We  have  also  told  you,  that,  in  referring  the  people 
to  the  word  of  God,  you  substitute  your  own  interpretations  of 
this  word,  for  the  word  itself,  and  thereby  deceive  them.  Though 
you  pretend  to  allow  them  to  think  for  themselves,  it  is  quite  the 
reverse.  We  cannot,  Rev.  Sir,  forget  the  famous  Synod  of  Dort, 
at  which  the  Divines  of  almost  every  Protestant  state  in  Europe 
assisted.  Did  not  this  Synod  fully  establish  the  doctrine  of  a  living 
and  speaking  tribunal  in  the  Church,  in  seizing  upon  and  impri- 
soning for  seven  months,  and  at  length  sending  into  exile,  without 
permitting  them  to  see  their  wives  or  families,  fifteen  Divines, 
Remonstrant,  or  Armenian,  who  refused  to  subscribe  to  their 
predestinarian  decree?  See  Brandt.  Tom.  2.  page  172.  Will 
Preacher  Brownlee,  in  the  face  of  this  fact,  say,  that  Calvinistic 
Parsons  allow  people  to  think  for  themselves  in  matters  of  reli- 
gion, and  that  they  do  not  keep  their  consciences  in  their  pockets  ? 

In  the  third  divison  of  your  epistle,  you  rebuke  us  for  despising 
the  traditions  of  the  Old  Italic,  Greek,  Syriac,  and  African 
churches.  Such  contempt,  you  say,  "is  the  consummation  of 
sacerdotal  arrogance."  We  emphatically  deny  the  charge.  Rev. 
Sir,  and  time  will  convince  you,  that  we  are  not  wanting  in 
respect  to  the  traditions  of  those  ancient  churches.  But  is  it  not 
the  extreme  of  folly  in  one,  whose  only  Rule  of  Faith  is  the  Bible, 
thus  to  declaim  in  favor  of  tradition  ?  Can  your  Protestant  lesson 
and  logic  lead  you  so  far  astray  as  not  to  see  that  the  moment 
you  admit,  that  the  change  of  the  Sabbath  and  infant  baptism  can 
be  settled  but  by  tradition,  you  aha7idon  the  word  of  God  as  your 
ONLY  Rule  of  Faith?  To  this  we  respectfully  call  the  attention  of 
the  Christian  public. 


201 

To  us  it  appears  evident,  that  you  were  never  tauglit  the  ele- 
ments of  true  logic,  or  you  would  not  in  all  your  conclusions 
depart  so  far  from  your  jiremiscs.  From  the  beginning  of  this 
controversy,  we  Iiave  demonstrated  the  inconclusivcness  of  your 
proofs  from  Scripture.  We  have  another  instance  before  us  in 
your  attempt  to  prove  the  abrogation  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath  from 
the  sacred  writings.  It  is  truly  ridiculous.  You  quote  from  the 
first  to  the  Corinthians  xvi.  1,  2.  "Now  concerning  the  collection 
for  the  saints,  as  I  have  given  order,  to  the  churches  of  Galatia, 
even  so  do  ye.  Upon  the  first  day  of  the  week,  let  every  one  of 
you  lay  by  him  in  store  as  God  has  prospered  him,  that  there  be 
no  gathering  ruAc7?  I  come."  Your  conclusion  is,  therefore,  the 
Jewish  Sabbath  has  been  abrogated,  and  Sunday  has  been  substi- 
tuted in  its  stead  ! ! !  Why,  Rev.  Sir,  the  veriest  old  crone  among 
your  virtuous  ladies  will  see  that  this  conclusion  is  not  contained 
in  the  premises,  and  that  the  inveterate  habit  of  drawing  such 
conclusions  argues  a  "derangement  of  the  moral  faculty."  One 
thmg  is  certain,  the  Holy  Ghost  must  consider  you  no  extraor- 
dinary genius,  when  after  a  course  of  some  thirty  or  forty  years 
in  his  school,  you  betray  such  ignorance  of  elementary  principles, 
The  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  abrogated,  because  the  primitive  Chris- 
tians were  in  the  habit  of  assembling  on  the  first  day  of  the  week! 
Did  not  the  Apostles  themselves  observe  the  Jewish  Sabbath  ? 
Read  the  2d  chapter  of  the  Acts,  and  you  will  find  in  the  4Gth 
verse,  that  "they  continued  daily  with  one  accord  in  the  Temple." 
It  is  also  true,  that  the  observances  of  the  old  seventh  day  or 
Saturday,  continued  in  the  eastern  churches,  even  after  the 
destruction  of  the  city  and  temple  of  Jerusalem.  See  the  discourse 
on  the  Lord's  day,  by  John  Howell,  a  Presbyter  of  the  Church  of 
England.  You  believe.  Rev.  Doctor,  that  the  Jewish  Sabbatli 
has  been  abrogated.  This  you  cannot  prove  from  Scripture  alone. 
Therefore,  Scripture  alone  is  not  your  Rule  of  Faith. 

The  Baptist  will  not  listen  to  your  lecture,  though  given  with 
all  the  tenderness  of  a  brother  in  full  communion.  They  will  tell 
you  that  God  is  the  immediate  instructor  of  the  faithful,  and  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  directs  them  in  their  belief  and  practice,  and  that 
your  theology  is  sinful.  They  will  also  run  to  the  authority  of 
the  renowned  Luther,  who  will  tell  them  that  the  practice  of  infant 
baptism  cannot  be  proved  from  the  Scripture  alone ;  attend  to  his 
words, — they  are  found  in  his  letter  written  to  two  clergymen  on 
the  subject  of  infant  baptism.  "I  answ^er.  On  texts  of  Scripture 
you  cannot  validly  establish  the  practice  of  infant  baptism  among 
the  early  Christians."  In  the  preceding  words  it  is  admitted  by 
Luther,  that  the  practice  of  infant  baptism  cannot  be  established 
on  the  express  words  of  Scripture  ;  that  the  necessity  of  this  prac- 
tice is  sufficiently  enforced  by  received  tradition,  and,  the  uninter- 
26  ' 


202 

iupted  custom  of  the  church.  Receive  another  great  Protestant 
authority  on  this  subject.  Melancthon  in  Loc.  Theol.  Tit.  de  Bap, 
Parvulorum,  says ;  "the  universal  accordance  of  the  Church 
throughout  all  ages,  is  the  testimony  that  this  ordinance  is  Apos- 
tolical." Universalis  consensus  Ecclesiee  omnium  temporum  est 
testimonium  quod  hsec  ordinatio  sit  ApostoUca.  Give  attention, 
now^.  Rev.  Doctor,  to  the  following  "form  of  reason," — it  will 
"bear  on  your  arguments."  If  the  Church  be  infallible  in  transmit- 
ting one  tradition  to  after  ages,  why  not  in  all,  since  the  Apostle 
St.  Paul,  when  he  calls  the  Church  "the  pillar  and  ground  of  truth," 
1  Tim.  iii.  15,  does  not  speak  in  a  limited  sense,  but  absolutely 
and  without  restriction?     Will  you  decline  an  answer? 

Strange,  Rev.  Sir,  that  your  only  judge  of  controversy,  the 

HOLY  GHOST  SPEAKING  TO  YOU  IN  THE  SCRIPTURES  doCS  UOt  dccido  this 

controversy  between   you  and  the   Baptists.     But  you  agree  to 
DIFFER,  because  there  are  differences  between  the  Jesuits  and  Jan- 
senists.     So  then,  it  is  nothing  to  disobey  the  Apostolic  precept  of 
avoiding  "sects"  "which  exclude  from  the  Kingdom  of  God,"  of 
thinking    ^^ the  same  thwg^^  of  having  "one  faith,  and  one   bap- 
tism," because  Jesuits  and  Jansenists  difier  ! ! !   But  we  all  "think 
the  same  thing,  for  we  agree  to  difler — w^e  are   "dear  Protes- 
tant brethren,"   says  Doctor   Brownlee, — w^e  all  learn  on    the 
great  principle  of  the  Reformation,  which  tells  us  that  the  truth  of 
God   is  contained  in  the  Bible  alone.  But  what  this  truth  is,  what 
Christianity  is,  we  know  not.     Believe  in  the  divinity  of  Christ,  in 
the  Trinity,  in  eternal  torments,  you  are  a  Christian.     Do  not  be- 
lieve in  any  of  these  points,  you  are  still  a  Christian.     What- 
ever your  individual  opinions  may  be,  if  you  think  they  are  found 
in  the  Bible,  that  is  enough.     Who  can  presume  to  determine  what 
is  necessary  to   be  believed?     The   Catholic  Church  has  done 
this,  and  has  done  it  from  the  beginning ;  we  have,  therefore,  flung 
off  her  slavish  yoke.     We  then  cannot  consistently   determine 
what  any  one  is  to  believe.  We  confess  that  it  will  appear  strange, 
that  God  has  spoken  to  man,  without  it  being  in  man's  power  to 
know  what  he  said,  but  we  must  believe,  that  this  is  the  case;  or 
Protestantism  is  false.     Remain  easy  then,  in  this  state  of  incer- 
titude and  be  convinced  that  you  can  be  good  Christians,  without 
knowing  what  you  are  to  believe,  in  order  to  be  Christians.     We 
are  "dear  Protestant  brethren,  our   differences  are  nothing  when 
compared  to  those  of  the   Jesuits  and  Jansenists."     Indeed,  Rev. 
Sir,  if  the  Council  of  Trent  or  the  creed  of  Pope  Pius  the  4th  taught 
iisio  believe  as  you  believe,  we  should  soon  fling  them  to  the  winds. 
You  tell  us  that  "the  traditions  given  by  the  Apostles  from  Christ, 
are  immediate  communications  by  inspiration."     Will  you  refuse 
to  be  governed  by  such  traditions?    Will  you'prove  from  the  Bible, 
that  the   Apostles  wrote   every   thing  that  Christ   taught  them? 


Will  you  prove,  if  the  Apostles  did  not  write  all  they  were  taught 
by  Christ  and  commanded  i6  j»rcach  to  the  world,  that  what  they  left 
unwritten  could  not  be  safely  handed  down  to  us,  by  the  church,  the 
*'pillar  and  ground  of  truth  V  Could  the  })illar  and  the  ground  ot 
truth  give  us  tor  Christ's  doctrine,  wh;it  Christ's  never  taught? 
Here  Sir,  is  a  fair  op|)ortunity  of  defending  your  Rule  of  Faith; 
will  you  'v/tr/i/R;"  it  I 

We  repeat,  that  it  is  painful  to  be  obliged  to  expose  your  ignor- 
ance where  you  ought  to  be  better  informed.  Your  attacks  on 
the  Vulgate  you  have  borrowed  from  Pope's  fourth  speech  in  the 
discussion  with  McGuire.  Strange  that  the  castigation  he  receiv- 
ed did  not  terrify  you  from  venturing  on  the  same  ground.  The 
Catholic  champion  earnestly  called  on  the  biblical  crusader  to  com- 
pare the  Sixtine  and  Clementine  editions  of  the  Bible,  with  the  Vul- 
gate of  St.  Jerome  and  to  point  out  any  substantial  dillerence,  if 
any  could  be  found.  This  he  did  not  do,  and  l"or  a  very  obvious 
reason.  Yet  after  this  failure  on  tiic  part  of  Mr.  Pope,  you  have 
the  effrontery  to  invoke  "all  the  learned  to  judge  between  us,  and 
you  pronounce  our  quototions  from  approving  Protestants  as  de- 
ceptions and  abs-olutely  to  no  purpose."  Believe  us,  Rev.  Sir,  that 
neither  Mills  nor  Walton,  nor  Grotius,  will  be  given  up  by  us,  on 
the  ipse  dixit  of  the  Preacher  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church.  They 
were  learned  in  biblical  criticism,  and  professed  the  greatest  es- 
teem for  the  Vulgate. 

Protestants  ought  to  pause  before  they  institute  a  comparison 
between  their  English  translations  of  the  Bible  and  our  Doway 
translation.  They  are  the  children  of  the  Bible  and  of  the  most 
abominably  corrupted  Bible,  that  ever  appeared.  We  make  no 
random  assertions.  Mark  our  proofs  and  weigh  them  well.  Read 
the  famous  Broughton's  advertisement  of  Corruption  to  the  Lords 
of  the  Council  in  the  year  U>04,  and  recollect  that  he  was  a  Puri- 
tan. He  tells  us  the  public  English  translation  caused  millions  oi 
millions  to  reject  the  new  Testament  and  to  run  into  eternal 
flames.  That  it  perverts  the  text  of  the  Old  Testament  in  more 
than  eight  hundred  places.     That  it  is  inferior  to  the  Alcoran. 

In  the  Hampton  Court  Conference,  p.  45,  46,  47,  all  the  Eng- 
lish Bibles  are  pronounced  infamous  translations.  For  the  histo- 
ry of  these  translations  we  refer  to  Bishop  Pretyman's  elements 
of  Theology,  vol.  2,  p.  18,  and  also  to  Johnson's  Historical  account 
of  English  translations,  and  for  the  corruptions  that  exist  even  in 
all  the  late  editions  of  the  English  Protestant  Bible,  we  refer  to 
the  pamphlet  of  Mr.  Curtis  on  this  subject.  As  you  profess  inti- 
macy with  the  "  Hebrew  and  Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  and,  it  is 
presumed,  are  interested  in  the  Protestant  translations  of  the  Bible, 
you,  of  course,  have  seen  the  pamphletof  Dr.  Curtis,  a  dissenting 
minister,  addressed  to  the  prch-cnt  Protc.>lant  Bishop  of  London. 


204 

In  this  pamphlet  the  Rev.  Mr.  Curtis  states,  as  the  result  of  a 
laborious  examination  of  a  great  number  of  Bibles,  that,  in  the 
modern  editions  he  has  detected  no  less  than  2931  intentional  de- 
partures from  King  James's  Bible,  in  seven  books,  or  only  d,  fourth 
part  of  the  canon  of  the  Scriptures  !  On  the  intentional  departures 
from  what  is  termed  in  England  the  authorized  version  of  the 
Scriptures,  we  refer  you  to  the  averments  made  by  several  highly 
respectable  witnesses  before  the  select  Committee  of  the  House 
of  Commons  on  King's  Printers'  Patents.  From  this  examination 
and  the  pamphlet  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Curtis,  you  will  obtain  know- 
ledge of  which  you  are  now  ignorant,  though  you  exult  in  your 
Protestant  education.  You  will  discover  not  merely  faithlessness 
in  rendering  the  word  of  God,  but  studied  and  intentional  depar- 
ture from  the  sense.  On  this  subject  you  are  also  referred  to 
Fuller's  '^  Fye  for  Shame,''  written  about  the  j^ear  1660.  He 
assigns  as  one  cause  of  the  growth  of  infidelity  in  the  land,  "the 
late  many  false  and  erroneous  impressions  of  the  Bible."  We 
shall  meet  you  again  on  this  topic. 

As  to  the  Doway  translation  of  the  Bible,  its  greatest  fault  is 
its  too  close  adherence  to  the   original.     This,  Sir,  is  the  only 
objection  that  Bishop   Pretyman  urges  against  it.     "  It  retains," 
says  this  learned  Divine,  "  too  many  Eastern,  Greek,  and  Latin 
words."     Now  Sir,  this  to  us,  who  are  fond  of  antiquity,  is  a  great 
commendation,  as  it  plainly  proves  that  the  authors  of  this  version 
did  not  take  the  same  liberties  with  the  sacred  text,  that  were 
taken  by  Tindal,  Coverdale,  the  Geneva  Divines  and  others.  The 
learned  histotian  of  Oxford,  Anthony  Wood,  will  inform  you,  that 
Doctor  Gregory  Martin,  the  brightest  ornament  of  that  Univer- 
sity, and  the  chief  translator  of  the  Doway  Bible,  "  was  a  most 
excellent  linguist,  exactly  read  and  versed  in  the  sacred  Scriptures, 
who  went  before  all  of  his  time  in  human  literature."  See  Athanas 
Oxon.    For  the   purity  and  fidelity  of  this  version,  we  hold  our- 
selves responsible,  and  would,  even  in  this  stage  of  our  controver- 
sy, though  a  departure  from  the  point  in  debate,  enter  on  a  critical 
examination  of  the  passages,  which  you  say  are  badly  rendered, 
if  we  were  not  afraid  of  extending  this  letter  beyond  a  reasonable 
length.     Let  it  suffice  for  the  present,  that  the  Pope  is  convinced, 
from  the  report  of  the  Bishops  in  the  countries  where  the  English 
language  is  commonly  spoken,  that  the  Doway  translation  and  the 
different  editions  of  it,  are  all   free  from  substantial  error.     This 
is  all  that  the  discipline  of  our  church  requires  with  regard  to  the 
different  translations  from  the  Vulgate — and  it  is  in  virtue  of  this 
discipline,  that  Dr.  Power  did  assert,  that  Roman  Catholics  were 
not  prevented  by  their  Pastors  from  reading  the  Bible  in  the 
vulgar  tongue. 

At  No.  5  of  your  last  letter,  there  is  a  buttress  for  your  Rule  of 


205 

Faith,  to  which,  it  was  supposed,  you  dared  not  have  recourse — 
THE  AUTHORITY  OF  THE  FATHERS  !  But  any  support  will  bc  giaspod 
at  by  a  sinking  man.  You  arc.  Rev.  Preacher,  a  paradoxical 
compound  of  strange  inconsistencies.  Did  the  most  profoundly 
intimate  with  modern  chemistry,  submit  your  pia  mater  to  analysis 
he  would  bc  at  fault.  No  skill,  no  dexterity  in  the  art  of  manipu- 
lation could  allect  it.  Return  to  your  letter.  No.  1.  Feb.  9tli,  and 
you  will  find  the  following  passage  at  page  45  of  the  ''  Truth 
Teller." 

"  As  for  the  fathers  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  Churches,  I  profess 
to  read  them  as  much  as  any  of  my  learned  antagonists.  And 
Izvill  receive  their  pages  with  profound  veneration  and  sit  at  their 
feet,  as  the  expositors  of  truth,  as  soon  as  the  Catholic  Church  of 
Rome  shall  produce  di  genuine  copy  of  them  as  the  Fathers  wrote, 
and  left,  their  sentiments — namely,  an  editio  expurfrata,  free  of 
all  the  scandalous  alterations  and  corruptions  made  in  them  by  the 
monks  of  the  dark  ages." 

The  inference  from  the  preceding  passage  w^ritten  by  Dr. 
Brownlec  in  his  first  Icttei  is,  obviously,  this, — a  correct  edition 
of  the  works  of  the  Fathers  does  not  exist,  for,  he  says,  the  monks 
of  the  dark  ages  corrupted  them.  Yet,  in  opposition  to  this  posi- 
tive assertion  he  quotes  from  the  works  of  the  Fathers  corrupted 
by  the  monks  because  he  thinks  it  supports  his  cause !  He  says 
"  produce  a  ge?iui?ie  copy  and  I  will  receive  their  pages  with  pro- 
found veneration!"  Yet  to  support  his  Rule  of  Faith,  and  w^ant- 
ing  an  editio  expurgata,  he  props  his  creed  on  quotations  from  the 
Fathers !  Is  there  in  the  records  of  controversial  history  so 
striking  an  example  of  inconsistency, — such  direct  contradiction? 
When  Preachers,  wdio  arrogate  to  themselves  an  intimacy  with 
the  interior  spirit,  who  w^ould  monopolize  whatever  is  profound 
and  good  in  clerical  education,  who  vaunt  their  "  Protestant  lesson 
and  logic,"  thus  rush  into  inconsistencies  and  contradictions,  what 
should  be  the  measure  of  their  castigation?  The  threat  of  Falstaff 
would  be  a  mild  infliction.  "  An  I  have  not,"  says  the  honest 
knight,  "  ballads  made  on  you  all,  and  sung  to  filthy  tunes,  let  a 
cup  of  sack  bc  my  poison." 

To  prove,  however,  how  vain  the  refuge  is  of  the  Preacher  in 
the  Middle  Dutch  Church  when  he  appeals  to  the  authority  of  the 
Fathers  on  his  Rule  of  Faith,  we  shall  meet  him  on  this,  subject  in 
a  future  letter.  At  present  our  reference  must  be  limited.  Two 
or  three  of  the  most  important  are  selected. 

As  your  predilections,  most  consistent  Preacher,  lean  to  Greek, 
w^e  shall  first  introduce  8t.  Chrysostom.  You  adduce  the  Fathers 
as  supporting  i/our  Rule  of  Faith  and  hostile  to  ours.  Let  this  be 
borne  in  mind  by  our  readers.  VVc  refer  you  to  your  first  quota- 
tion from  ^St.  Chrysostom  and  ask  you,  does  it  say  the  Bible  is  the 


206 

only  Rule  of  Faith '^  It  does  not ;  it  merely  recommends  the 
reading  of  the  Scriptures.  Deduce  any  other  inference  if  you  can. 
But  mark  the  words  of  St.  Chrysostom  in  his  4th  Homily  on  the 
second  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians.  He  does  not  admit  the  Bible 
as  the  only  Rule  of  Faith,  for  he  says  the  traditions  of  the  Church 
must  be  credited.  "  Hence,"  he  writes,  "  St  Paul  did  not  include 
all  the  things  in  his  Epistle,  for  many  things  are  unwritten  by  him; 
and  those  are  also  worthy  of  belief.  Wherefore,  we  deem  the 
TRADITION  of  the  Church  worthy  of  faith. —  There  is  tradition; 
therefore  ask  no  more." 

The  passages  from  St.  Austin  do  not  support  the  conclusion 
that  the  Bible  is  the  only  Rule  of  Faith.  We  refer  you  to  the 
context  connected  with  your  citations.  Attend  to  the  import  of 
the  entire  not  to  a  part.  Writing  on  infant  baptism,  his  words  are 
lib.  18.  de  Generi  ad  literam.  Cap.  23., — "The  custom  of  our 
mother  the  church,  in  baptizing  children,  must  not,  on  any  account 
be  condemned,  neither  must  it  be  supposed  a  superfluous  practice 
— for  faith  in  it  is  founded  on  Apostolical  tradition."  Hence  ac- 
cording to  St.  Austin,  the  Bible  is  not  the  only  Rule  of  Faith.  In 
his  work  against  the  Epistle  of  Fundamentus  he  affirms,  "  I  would 
not  believe  in  the  Gospel  were  it  not  for  the  authority  of  the 
Church." 

St.  Jerome  writing  against  the  Luciferians  says, — "  though  the 
authority  of  Scripture  were  wanting,  the  accordance  of  the  whole 
world  would  here  have  the  force  of  a  precept."  We  shall  again 
recur  to  the  authority  of  the  Fathers  against  the  Preacher's  Pro- 
testant Rule  of  Faith. 

You  tell  us  that  "  we  make  Augustine  affirm  that  Pope  Marcelli- 
nus  was  not  an  idolater,  and  that  this  slander  was  raised  by  the 
Donatists."  We  did  not  make  St.  Augustine  affirm,  but  we  said 
that  St.  Augustine  affirmed,  that  the  idolatry  of  Marcellinus,  was 
a  slander  of  the  Donatists.  The  authority  of  Pope  Pius  the  2d  as 
to  an  historical  fact,  is  only  to  be  respected,  in  as  much  as  it  is  well 
founded; — and  with  every  respect  for  his  sublime  dignity,  we 
must  confess  that  we  prefer  the  authority  of  St.  Augustine,  in  the 
present  instance,  for  reasons  which  must  strike  every  one  versed 
in  historical  criticism — for  example,  he  was  nearer  to  the  time  of 
the  occurrence,  and  possessed  understanding  to  discover  the  truth 
and  honesty  to  announce  it.  In  the  seventh  section  of  your 
Hydra  Epistle,  you  politely  accuse  us  of  a  "  reckless  disregard  of 
truth,"  for  saying  that  "no  divine  of  the  Church  of  Rome  ever 
taught  that  infallibility  was  lodged  in  the  Pope  alone."  We  do 
not  avoid  the  weight  of  this  assertion.  But  how  do  you  convict 
us  of  falsehood  ?  Ey  an  argument  at  once  the  most  stupid  and 
absurd.  Bellarmine  is  a  son  of  the  Church  ;  but  Bellarmine  says 
that  the  Pope  is  above  a  general  council.     Therefore,  Bellarmine 


207 

believed  that  infallibility  resides  in  the  Pope  alone.  Now,  Sir, 
Bellarminc  believed  that  Christ  was  above  the  Apostles.  There- 
fore, according  to  you,  Bellarminc  believed  that  iniallibility  was 
confined  to  Christ  alone,  and  that  the  Apostles  were  not  infallible. 
Dear  Doctor  we  despair  of  ever  making  a  logician  of  you. 

The  Jesuits,  you  say,  have  been  in  the  habit  of  opposing  the  Bible 
Rule  of  Faith,  by  an  argument  taken  from  the  abuse  of  it  by  the 
diflerent  sectaries.  Attend  to  truth  in  your  assertions,  Rev.  Sir. 
The  Jesuits  and  we  say  that  the  Bible  as  interpreted  by  every 
individual  according  to  his  own  private  spirit,  was  never  estab- 
lished by  Christ  as  the  only  Rule  of  Faith.  Nor  are  we  singular 
in  this  opinion.  We  have  referred  to  Hook,  a  Protestant,  in  his 
Ecclesiastical  Polity,  p.  119,  where  we  are  told  "  that  this  conceit 
of  private  interpretation  has  made  thousands  so  headstrong  even 
in  gross  and  palpable  errors;  that  a  man  whose  capacity  will 
scarce  serve  him  to  utter  five  words  in  a  sensible  manner,  blush- 
eth  not  in  any  doubt  concerning  matter  of  Scripture,  to  think  his 
own  bare  yea  as  good  as  the  nay  of  all  the  wise  and  learned  judg- 
ments that  are  in  the  whole  world:  which  insolency  must  be 
repressed  or  it  will  be  the  bane  of  the  Christian  religion."  We 
argue  against  your  Rule  of  Faith,  the  Bible  interpreted  by  private 
judgment,  because  it  is  the  "bane  of  the  Christian  religion." 

In  answer  to  your  questions  against  the  perpetual  visibility  of 
the  Church  of  Christ,  allow  us  to  ask  you  with  St.  Augustine, 
"  What  dost  thou  mean,  O  Heretic,  by  flying  into  darkness?"  Our 
Saviour  has  said  that  the  doers  of  evil  love  darkness  more  than 
the  light.  Hence,  if  you  ask  the  heretic,  who  expounds  the  Scrip- 
ture? He  will  tell  you,  the  Scripture  itself:  the  private  spirit.  Jf 
you  ask  him  which  are  the  marks  of  the  true  Church  ?  He  an- 
swers, the  true  preaching  word,  more  difiicult  to  be  discovered 
than  the  Church  herself.  If  you  ask,  where  was  the  Protestant 
Church  before  Luther?  He  answers,  it  was  in  the  wilderness,  it 
was  in  corners,  in  mountains,  and  in  deserts.  These  without 
doubt  would  be  Dr.  Brownlee's  answer.  But  let  him  listen  to  the 
famous  Dr.  Field,  Lib.  I.  Cap.  10.  "There  is,"  says  he,  "and 
always  hath  been  a  visible  Church."  This  idea  of  an  invisible 
Church,  says  Melancthon,  causes  endless  confusion,  and  induceth 
a  commonwealth  of  unruly  ruffians  or  Atheists.  Sec  Melanct.  in 
Prefat.  Corp.  Doci.  Christ.  Again  we  call  on  him  to  listen  to  the 
prophet  Isaias,  c.  GO,  11,  who  speaks  of  the  Church  of  Christ  in 
the  following  manner: — "  Therefore  thy  gates  shall  be  open  con- 
tinually, they  shall  not  be  shut  day  nor  night;"  mark  the  reason, 
Rev.  Sir,  "  that  men  may  bring  to  thee  the  forces  of  the  Gentiles." 
We  ask  you  candidly,  if  a  cont'umal  admittance  into  the  Cliurch 
could  exist  without  continual  visibility  ?  Your  remarks  on  this  text 
are  worthy  onlv  <^f  a  Sabbath  schr)lar.  Isaias  2,  2.  and  Mich.  4. 2. 


208 

describe  the  church  as  "  a  mountain  on  the  top  of  mountains/'  as 
"a  city  whose  watchmen  shall  never  hold  their  peace."  If  these 
words  be  true,  an  invisible  church  is  no  church.  When  there  is 
only  question  of  the  church  of  Christ  on  earth,  that  church  which 
Christ  commands  us  to  hear  and  obey,  is  it  not  ridiculous  in  you 
to  fly  from  this  militant  church  on  earth,  to  the  church  triumphant 
in  heaven  ?  We  answer,  that  the  church  triumphant  in  heaven 
is  not  visible;  but  will  it,  therefore,  follow  that  the  militant  church 
on  earth  is  not  always  visible?  Perhaps  Protestant  lesson  and 
logic  may  justify  this  conclusion;  ours  will  not.  Was  the  church 
visible  in  the  days  of  King  Ahab:  "where?"  In  the  kingdom  of  Ju- 
dah  under  the  pious  king  Josaphat.  Shame  for  a  Sabbath  school 
scholar  to  betray  so  much  ignorance  of  the  condition  of  the  old 
Jewish  Church. 

In  conclusion,  Rev.  Sir,  we  have  to  state,  that  the  Scripture 
makes  no  mention  of  the  baptism  of  infants, — no  mention  of  the 
procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost  from  the  Father  and  the  Son;  no 
mention  of  the  Son  being  consubstantial  with  the  Father ; — no 
mentionof  the  change  of  the  Sabbath  into  the  Lord's  day.  To 
believe  the  Scriptures  themselves  to  be  the  Word  of  God,  is  as 
necessary  for  salvation,  as  to  believe  any  thing  which  the  Word 
of  God  contains.  That  the  Scriptures  are  the  Word  of  God 
cannot  be  proved  from  the  Scriptures.  To  know  which  is  a 
true  sense  of  Scripture,  a  true  translation,  which  are  the  can- 
onical books  of  Scripture,  and  which  not,  are  necessary  to  salva- 
tion. Will  you  say  that  these  things  are  mentioned  in  Scripture? 
If  they  are  not  mentioned  in  Scripture  will  you  say  that  the  Scrip- 
ture is  the  whole  Word  of  God  ?  Will  you  say  that  it  is  the  only 
Rule  of  Faith?  Again,  if  it  be  your  only  Ruleof  Faith  why  do  you 
contradict  it?  The  written  Word  of  God  commands  us  to  abstain 
from  blood  and  strangled  meats,  which  all  Christians  observed  for 
some  considerable  time.  See  Exod.  31.  17.  Acts  15.  20.  You 
feed  on  those  forbidden  meats  warranted  only  by  our  tradition. 
Why  do  you  without  any  precept  of  Scripture,  change  the  ever- 
lasting covenant  of  the  Sabbath  day  ir)to  Sunday,  warranted  by 
our  tradition?  If  you  abandon  your  cause,  Rev.  Doctor,  without 
a  solution  to  the  above  queries,  what  will  the  pubKc  think  of  you? 
Your  reputation  is  at  stake,  and,  in  public  judgment,  will  be  lost,  if 
you  fly  from  your  rule  of  Faith,  without  any  show  of  defence. 
Though  we  are  your  opponents,  our  advice  is  worth  attention. 
Recollect  the  old  saying  "fas  est  ab  at  hoste  doceri." 
We  are  Sir,  your  obedient  servants, 

JOHN  POWER, 
THOMAS  C.  LEVINS. 

Kew  York,  May  Sth,  1833. 


209 

JDr.  Brownlce'^s  Ijetier^   JVo,   8. 
TO   DllS.   POWER,    VARELA,    &  LEVANS. 

*'Upon  this  rock  will  I  build  my  church!" — Jesxa  Christ. 

"And  that  rock  was  Christ"— ^<.  Paul. 

"Other  foundation  can  no  man  lay,  than  that  is  laid,  which  is  Jesus  Christ." — St  Paul' 

Gentlemen:-- Your  sevcjith  letter  I  have  carefully  perused.     You 
would  have  saved  trouble,  and  been  as  near  your  object,  had  you 
reprinted  the  sixth  against  me,  in  reply.     You   have  offered,   in 
both,  much  incense  to  the  spirit  of  error  and  heresy.     I  fear  he  is 
the  genius  loci,  the  presiding  genius  over  all  your  nocturnal  watch- 
ings  and  lucubrations.     You  have  renewed  your  crusade  against 
the  Holy  Bible;  but  without  advancing  one  single  new  idea  ;  or 
even  one  semblance  of  a  fresh  argument  on  the  point.     My  ten 
arguments  against  your  Rule,  by  which  the  public  will  do  me  the 
justice  to  say,  your  Rule  has  been  demolished  and  annihilated,   lo- 
gically,—and  have  been  passed  over,  unnoticed  by  you.--And  gen- 
tlemen, what  ever  attributes  your  enemies  deny  you,  I  shall  main- 
tain that  in  this  silence,  you  possess  both  wisdom   and   cunning. 
We  have  also  fully  established  the  evidence  of  the   Holy  Scrip- 
tures, by  the  usual  arguments  and  proofs,  briefly  given  from  inter- 
nal and  from  external  evidence;  from  miracles,  prophecy,  and  his- 
torical evidence  or  tradition.     And,  I  trust,  I  have  fully  exposed 
your   besetting  sins  touching   tradition.     It  is  truly  ludicrous  to 
see  grave  and  professedly  learned  men  insisting  on  it,  forever, 
that  tradition  alone  is  all  the  evidence  of  the  Bible's  inspiration  ; 
and  that  tradition   belongs  solely   and  exclusively,   and  only  to 
*'Holy  Mother"   of  Rome,  verily!     You  repeat  here,  again,  with 
solemn  trifling,  all  your  deism  and  twaddle  in  this  matter,  which 
had  been  refuted,  and   exposed,  and   logically  put  to   rest.     The 
only  thing  that  seems  to  be  novel  is  this:  you  have  fallen,  hke 
theological  sophomores,  into  the  silly  error  of  confounding  the  act 
of  faith  in  the  external  evidence  of  the  Holy  Bible,  with  the  act  of 
faith  in  our  Lord,  speaking  in  the  Bible.     By  the  former  we  are 
assured  that  the  Bible  came  from   God— by  the  latter  we  do   be- 
lieve in  Christ,  speaking  in  the  Bible,  and  through  that  faith,  are  jus- 
tified before  God.     Now  my  profound  opponents  cannot  compre- 
hend the  distinction !     And  what  is   more,  no   papist  ever  can. 
For  he  believes   in  "the  church"  namely  "Holy   Mother."     And 
by   that  faith  is  he  saved.     This  gravely,  is  their  avowed  sense 
of  that  sentence  in  the  creed— "I  believe  in  the  Cathohc  Church"! ! ! 
My  exposure  of  your  Vulgate  Bible  has  taken  effect— it  has 
stung  the  priest's   conscience !     And  you   cannot   conceal   how 
much  you  writhe  under   it.     No  wonder  :  Magna  est  Veritas,  et 
prevalebit  !— But  you  have  not  examined,  far  less  refuted  one  of 
No.  14.— 27. 


210 

my  statements.  And  I  compliment  you  again  on  your  wisdom 
in  not  touching  them.  One  of  the  venerable  members  of  the  bar 
lately  gave  this  advice  to  a  young  lawyer,--"Whenever  your 
opponent  advances  an  argument  which  you  cannot  answer— take 
special  care  not  to  touch  it" ! 

The  strongest  thing  you  have  said  here,  in  reply  to  my  expo- 
sure of  your  Vulgate,  is  this, — "Your  attack  on  it  you  have  bor- 
rowed from  Pope's  discussion  with  M'Guire  &c."  My  good  pa- 
dres, I  did  not  know  it ;  for  in  honest  truth,  I  am  sorry  to  say, 
that  I  have  not  been  able  to  add  that  book  to  my  list.  I  have 
never  seen  it.  But  gentlemen,  you  must  have  seen  that  I  copied 
my  authorities  from  the  fountain  head,— such  as  Nolan,  Home, 
Willet,  father  Paul  Sarpi,  Pallavicini,  and  the  collections  of  Cramp. 
And  gentlemen,  if,  as  you  say, Pope  was  so  ill  informed  on  the  sub- 
ject, as  not  to  be  able  to  silence  M'Guire  promptly  on  this  point,  by 
an  exhibition  of  the  endless  errors,  variations,  and  contradictions 
existing  between  the  Sixtine,  and  the  Clementine  editions  of  the 
Vulgate,  he  was  very  ill  qualified  for  his  duty.  Every  scholar 
knows  that  Dr.  James,  in  his  Bcllum  Papale,  has  pointed  out  2000 
variations  between  these  two  papal  editions.  And  any  one  by  tak- 
ing up  Hornevol.  ii.  p.  200-201  can  see  a  specimen  of  these  errors, 
omissions,  additions  and  contradictions.  I  mention  Home,  be- 
cause he  is  in  every  Minister's  library.  And  I  again  refresh  you 
with  Reuchline  and  Jerome's  words,— "the  Hebrews  drink  of  the 
well  head ;  the  Greeks  of  the  stream ;  and  the  Latins  of  the  pud- 
dle!" And  at  the  same  time,  I  renew  my  public  challenge  to  you 
to  tell  the  public,  to  which  of  these  erroneous  and  contradictory 
editions  of  your  Vulgate,  from  the  hands  of  these  two  equally 
infallible  and  contradictory  Popes,  you  give  in  the  adhesion  of 
your  flexible  consciences.  We  beseech  you  do  not  omit  an  hon- 
est answer  to  this.     It  deeply  affects  your  cause. 

I  also  beg  leave  to  renew  my  demand  of  an  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion in  my  last;  and  which  you  have  shunned.  You  have  al- 
ways averred,  and  can  we  doubt  your  honour,  that  you  do  insist, 
that  your  laity  read  the  Holy  Bible?     Now,  we  demand  you  to  tell 

us  IF  THERE  BE  0^E  ENGLISH  VERSION  OF  THE  BIBLE  AUTHORIZED 
BY    EITHER    THE    POPE,    OR    THE    CHURCH  !       Wc  say  thcrO   is  UOt  OUC 

authorized  version  in  our  language.  Will  you  venture  out  to 
contradict  it  ?  I  possess  evidence,  namely,  the  testimony  upon 
oath,  of  your  first  men  in  Ireland — priests, — given  in  before  the 
British  Parliament,  to  confirm  what  I  say! 

You  are  involved  in  a  difficulty,  really  inextricable,  from  my 
quotations  from  the  Greek  and  Latin  fathers.     And  I  am  anxious 
to  show  how  great  this  difficulty  is.     There  is  no  contradiction,  as 
you  affect  to  say,  between  my  letter  I  and  VII.     You  know  as  . 
well  as  I  do,  that  the  fathers  have  been  altered,  mangled,  corrupt- 


211 

ed,  in  many  parts.  But  Providence  so  ordered  it,  that  these  kna- 
vish  monks  who  corrupted  many  parts  of  them,  did  not  succeed 
in  corrupting  all  of  them ;  or  all  parts  of  each  of  them.  Hence 
the  many  glaring  contradictions  on  their  pages.  Now,  take  it 
which  way  you  please,  gentlemen,  the  quotations  from  the  fathers 
are  absolutely  fatal  to  your  sinking  cause.  It  is  an  immutable 
doctrine  of  your  Church  that  no  rite,  nor  doctrine  is  from  God 
unless  it  have  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  said  fathers.  Hence 
it  is  utter  folly  in  you,  gentlemen,  to  do  as  Padre  Levins  has  done, 
— namely  to  quote  a  sentence  or  two ;  this  will  never  do.  You 
must  have  their  unanimous  consent.  If  I  produce,  as  you  know  I 
have  done,  a  sentence  from  these,  contradicting  yours  it  is  no 
matter  to  our  Protestant  cause,  which  of  us  is  right.  It  is  enough 
for  me  that  I  destroy  your  unanimous  consent.  I  beg  my  readers 
to  remember  this  important  maxim.  It  is  to  administer  glorious 
service  to  us  in  our  future  discussions  of  the  Romish  doctrines 
and  ceremonies. 

Finally — There  is  one  other  point  in  which  I  lind  something, 
apparently  new.  In  a  fresh  and  most  unchristian  ebullition 
against  the  Holy  Scriptures,  you  quote  Dr.  Curtis's  pamphlet  in 
which  he  numbers  no  less  than  2931  intentional  departures  from 
the  received  version  of  our  English  Bible ;  that  is,  he  undertakes 
to  show  that,  in  the  printing,  all  these  errors  have  been  introduc- 
ed. And  in  this  detection,  our  Reverend  Christian  priests  exult, 
and  leap  for  joy,  as  if  they,  and  their  Agrarian  auxiliaries  had  ac- 
tually made  a  breach  in  the  walls  of  Zion ! ! ! 

I  have  convicted  my  opponents  of  Deism ;  and  I  have  evidence 
that  every  thinking  Christian  in  the  community  is  fully  and  pain- 
fully satisfied  with  the  evidence.  And  to  establish  this  fact,  was 
indeed,  my  main  reason  for  lingering  so  long  on  the  Rule.  We 
have  succeeded  in  dragging  out  this  lurking  Antichrist  from  his 
deceptious  den ;  and  we  have  branded  on  his  forehead,  a  mark, 
and  a  name,  which  all  his  holy  water  can  never  wash  out — name- 
ly, "  This  is  the  Father  and  Prince  of  Deism  !"  And  Deists  may 
well  bow  the  knee  to  him. 

And  as  if  they  were  resolved,  unblushingly  to  wear  the  mark 
and  the  name,  my  opponents  have  made  this  new  assault,  tbough 
the  aid  of  Dr.  Curtis,  against  the  blessed  Scriptures.  Now,  mark 
the  proofs  of  their  dishonesty  in  this  matter.  When  we  remem- 
ber the  source  whence  Messrs.  Power  and  Levins  got  their  infor- 
mation of  Dr.  Curtis'  researches,  it  was  morally  iznpossible  for 
them  not  to  know  that  the  profound  scholar  Dr.  Cajdwell,  of 
Oxford  University,  has  entered  the  lists  against  him,  and  has 
overthrown  him,  and  exposed  his  errors  completely.  I  shall  edify 
my  honest  and  accurate  opponents,  by  quoting  a  little  specimen 
of  this  exposure      In  the  book  ol  Genesis,  Dr.  Curtis  muitcr*  thu 


212 

formidable  array  of  eight  hundred  and  seven  variations,  and  in 
the  Gospel  of  Matthew  no  less  than  four  hundred  and  sixteen. 
This,  to  you  and  every  infidel,  is  a  very  refreshing  and  comforta- 
ble discovery.  But  pause  a  little.  Our  champion  Dr.  Cardwell, 
goes  over  the  same  ground,  collates  the  various  copies,  and  shov^^s 
triumphantly  that  in  Genesis  there  are  only  ni7ie  variations ;  and 
in  Matthew  orAy  eleven!  And  these  aflfect  not  the  sense;  nor 
trench  on  one  doctrine !  If  a  Jesuit  could  be  brought,  by  any 
power  short  of  divine  grace,  to  blush,  my  guilty  and  treacherous 
opponents  ought  to  blush  to  their  very  tonsures !  But,  the  grace 
of  God  only  can  make  a  culprit  see  and  feel  his  crimes ! 

I  have  only  one  remark  more,  I  am  prepared  to,  hear  even  the 
ultra  deism  of  the  Voltaire  school  from  you,  gentlemen,  but  the 
indecent  sally  in  your  last  letter,  I  was  really  not  prepared  to 
hear.  I  allude  to  your  revolting  blasphemy,  in  Truth  Teller, 
(p.  151,  col.  1.)  Will  the  Christian  community  pardon  me  for 
quoting  it  ?  "  One  thing  is  certain,  the  Holy  Ghost  must  consider 
you  (Dr.  B.)  no  extraordinary  genius,  when  after  a  course  of 
thirty  or  forty  years  in  his  school,  you  betray  such  ignorance,  &c." 

The  ignorant  and  deluded  beings  who  can  write,  and  inflict  on 
the  church,  such  outrageous  blasphemy  against  the  most  Holy 
One,  cannot  be  said  to  believe  that  "  there  is  any  Holy  Ghost?' 
and  it  were  mere  mockery  to  call  them  Christians !  I  appeal  to 
every  one  of  the  five  hundred  thousand  Christians  in  the  United 
States,  who  read  our  letters !  Have  we  not  convicted  the  Priests 
of  Deism,  and  revolting  blasphemy !     Is  there  one  doubt  left  ? 

One  word  to  the  confederated  parties— the  Roman  Priests,  and 
the  deistical  gentlemen,  before  I  leave  them. 

Gentleman  Priests:— Hark  ye,  your  very  natural  and  anti- 
christian  invectives  against  God's  holy  Word,  have  been  devout- 
ly hailed  by  all  the  infidels  in  the  land.  I  said  devoutly,  for  in  the 
absence  of  the  Agrarian  chief,  now  laboring  in  the  cause  of  deism 
in  England,  they  are  glad  of  any  little  aid  to  their  cause — come 
it  from  a  Roman  Priest,  dyed  in  the  wool;  or  come  it  from  a 
genuine  Frances  Wright  advocate.  And  this  is  no  despicable 
attribute  of  their  system,  that  they  are  very  thankful  for  very 
smah  favors !  It  is  very  true;  and  I  only  remind  you  of  it,  that 
they  have  applauded  your  intellectual  industry  against  God's  holy 
Bible,  at  the  expense  of  your  sincerity,  and  moral  honesty.  And 
it  ought  not  to  be  concealed  that  these,  your  auxiliaries,  do  gravely 
pronounce  ai\  of  you  hypocrites.  Call  for  the  watch  word;  there 
will  soon  be  trouble  in  the  camp ! 

And,  Gentleman  Deists,  are  you  aware  of  the  character  and 
pretentions  of  the  Roman  Priests  with  whom  you  "  colleague ! " 
Are  you  aware  of  the  consequences  which  will  follow,  should  you 
succeed  in  conducting  them  into  power,  in  these  United  States  ? 


213 

Look  at  Italy,  at  Austria,  Naples,  and  Spain.  You  are  helping  to 
light  up  the  fires  of  the  Auto  da  fe.  The  Roman  church  cannot 
exist  without  persecutions,  massacres,  and  the  burning  of  her  foes. 
For  she  holds  no  faith  with  heretics;  and  it  is  a  most  meritorious 
deed  to  extirpate  heretics!!  In  aiding  the  Roman  Priests  (who 
laugh  in  their  sleeves  at  your  credulity  and  weakness)  you  are 
preparing  the  fire  and  faggots.  You  are  preparing  for  yourselves 
the  unenvied  distinction  of  being  the  last  devoured!!!  Pause  I 
beseech  you,  and  think.  Do  not  strengthen  the  tyrant's  arm  which 
is  raising  the  blow  against  our  fair  and  hitherto  happy  Republic. 
I  now  go  on  to  show  that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church   is 

YOUNGER  THAN  CHRISTIANITY  ;    AND  THAT  PoPERY  IS  A  MERE  NOVELTY 
IN  THE  RELIGIOUS  WORLD. 

Here  I  would  observe  that  the  Church  of  God  is  one  great  and 
holy  body,  of  which  Christ  is  the  head.  The  Church  has  existed 
from  the  beginning  of  the  world,  it  exists  now,  and  will  exist  till 
the  consummation  of  all  things;  its  existence  has  not  been  afiect- 
ed  by  the  lapse  of  time,  or  the  change,  and  succession  of  her  indi- 
vidual members. 

The  church  has  ever  held  the  truth.  And  truth  descended  from 
God,  and  has  ever  kept  her  throne  in  Zion.  Christ,  the  King  of 
truth,  reigns  in  her  for  ever.  Nothing  of  human  invention  is  of 
the  truth.  Every  item  of  it  comes  from  God,  through  Jesus 
Christ. 

The  following  are  some  of  these  leading  truths  which  never 
failed  in  the  church ;  and  which  have  ever  distinguished  the 
Church  from  all  human  societies.  And  wherever  these  doctrines 
are  wanting,  there  "  Satan  has  his  seat;"  and  there  is  "his  syna- 
gogue." 1st.  The  one  living  and  true  God  is  the  only  and  exclu- 
sive object  of  divine  worship  and  veneration.  The  Church  of 
God  never  prayed  to  creatures ;  never  made  supplications  to  dead 
men,  or  dead  women.  The  Pagan,  and  afterwards  the  anti- 
christian  apostacy  alone,  did  this.  The  pagans  deified  their  heroes 
and  heroines,  and  made  supplications  to  them.  The  anti-christian 
apostacy,  faithful  copyers,  have,  in  like  manner,  deified  or  canoni- 
zed their  dead  spiritual  heroes  and  heroines ;  ofl^er  incense  to 
them ;  bow  down  before  them  ;  and  make  solemn  supplications 
and  prayers  to  them.  These  systems  are  twin  sisters;  begotten 
by  their  common  father,'the  Prince  of  Darkness,  the  grand  enemy 
of  divine  worship,  and  the  originator  of  all  idolatry. 

2d.  The  Church  has  ever  held  faith  in  the  one  Saviour,  Jesus 
Christ;  and  his  one  perfect  sacrifice.  Pagan  and  anti-christian 
apostacy  have  renounced  this.  The  sacrifices  of  the  former  and 
the  Mass  sacrifice  of  the  latter,  have  displaced  and  rejected,  com- 
pletely, the  one  only  sacrifice  of  our  blessed  Lord.  Besides, 
popery  has   created  such  a  host  of  Mediators,  and  Mediatrices, 


214 

and  intercessors,  in  the  deified  saints,  that  the  humble  faithful 
cannot  get  a  sight  of  the  one  only  Mediator  Christ,  on  account  of 
the  countless  rabble  of  saints  put  into  the  place  which  he  only 
should  occupy  ! 

3d.  The  Church  of  God  never  used  images  to  aid  her  worship. 
She  was  solemnly  prohibited  from  this  iniquity  by  the  second 
precept.  "  Thou  shalt  not  make  unto  thee  any  graven  image,  nor 
the  likeness  of  any  thing,  &c.  Thou  shalt  not  bow  down  thyself 
to  them,  &c."  This  is  the  literal  version  of  the  Hebrew  original; 
every  other  version  is  false;  and  does  of  design,  cover  idolatrous 
practices.  As  for  the  cherubim,  and  the  brazen  serpent,  they 
were  made  by  an  express  command  from  God;  and  they  were  not 
used  to  worship  God,  in  any  sense  whatever.  It  was  for  the  sin 
of  idolatry,  or  using  images  and  false  Gods,  that  the  ancient  Jews 
suffered  most  severely,  by  the  terrible  judgments  of  God  on  that 
heaven-daring  sin ! 

4th.  The  circumcision  of  the  heart,  or  spiritual  regeneration 
was  a  peculiar  doctrine  of  the  Church.  "Except  a  man  be  born 
again,  he  cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of  God."  This  doctrine  is 
unknown  to  pagans>  and  laughed  to  scorn  by  the  Pope,  and  his 
priesthood.  They  hold  that  no  "internal  grace"  is  needful  in 
the  members  of  the  Church,  but  only  "  external  profession." 
And  most  gravely  they  assert  that  wicked  men  and  even  repro- 
bates, remaining  in  the  public  profession  of  the  Church,  are  true 
members  of  the  body  of  Christ:  See  Bella rminc  De  Eccles. 
Lib.  iii.  cap.  2.  and  7.  And  the  Rhem  Annot  on  1  Tim.  2.  Sect. 
]0.     And  on  John  15.     Sect.  1.  Willet  p.  61. 

5th.  The  church  always  held  that  God  only  and  exclusively  is 
THE  Lord  of  the  human  conscience  ;  and  in  no  subordinate  sense 
can  any  mortal  claim  power  over  the  conscience.  Almighty  God 
will  not  share  his  throne  with  any  miserable  and  arrogant  human 
tyrant.  All  false  rehgions  lodge  power  with  the  priests,  to  rule 
over  and  dictate  to,  the  conscience.  This  ever  has  been  the 
characteristic  of  Paganism  and  Romanism.  The  evidence  of  this 
lies  open  to  view,  on  the  page  of  Scripture  ;  and  in  the  history  of 
Paganism,  and  the  Roman  church. 

6th.  Almighty  God  alone  can,  and  does  pardon  sin.  He  gave 
the  law,  prescribed  the  penalty ;  we  are  his  moral  subjects ;  to 
him  alone  we  are  accountable  in  the  matters  of  sin,  spiritual  duty, 
and  pardon.  As  church  members  we  ought  to  confess  our  faults 
one  to  another  ;  and  so  ought  the  priest  to  confess  his  faults  to  the 
people,  if  this  text  be  quoted  by  them  as  authority  for  this  inno- 
vation. But  auricular  confession  has  no  warrant  from  Almighty 
God.  Upon  the  principles  of  Pagans,  and  Roman  Catholics,  God 
has  transferred  over  into  the  hands  of  immoral  and  polluted  men, 
the  government  of  his  empire.     If  a  priest  has  a  right  to  receive 


215 

the  confession  of  sins,  and  pronounce  absolntion  /or  money,  then 
he  has  a  right  to  claim  the  judgment  seat  of  heaven;  and  judge 
the  dead;  and  displace  Jesus  Christ,  in  order  to  make  gain  ! 

7th.  The  spirit  of  true  religion  is  the  unsubduable  spirit  of  lib- 
erty. Wherever  the  worship  of  the  true  and  Holy  One  has  been 
established  by  the  Gospel,  there  liberty  has  reigned:  and>  just  in 
proportion  as  the  Gospel  is  left  unshackled  by  the  traditions,  and 
interested  schemes  of  men,  has  liberty  had  her  splendid  triumphs! 
The  Jewish  church  exhibited  liberty  dillusing  happiness  over  a 
free  and  happy  people.  When  religion  languished,  tyrants  bore 
sway.  Let  the  people  cast  their  eyes  over  all  Roman  Catholic 
■nations,  and  contrast  their  degradation,  and  tyranny,  and  priest- 
craft, and  outrageous  oppression — with  the  light,  liberty,  and  hap- 
piness of  Protestant  countries  I  Contrast  Spain  and  Italy,  and 
Austria,  with  Holland  and  England  !  Contrast  the  turbulent  Mexi- 
cans, and  Southern  priest-ridden  Republics,  with  our  own  glorious 
Repubhc,  and  rea(i-#ie  truth  written  with  a  sunbeam  !  Let 
our  sound  politicians  look  well  to  this,  and  learn  a  solemn  les- 
son ! 

8th.  The  true  and  chaste  spouse  of  Christ  is  not  conjoined,  in 
bondage  unto  the  State.  "  My  Idngdom  is  not  of  this  world," 
said  Christ.  And  his  servants  are  not  allowed  to  usurp  authority, 
or  "be  lords  over  God's  heritage :"  far  less  are  they  to  be  luxuri- 
ous, proud,  insolent,  and  truculent  tyrants  and  princes !  The 
Pagan  and  Roman  religion ;  and  those  who  are  only  half  Reform- 
ed, have  ever  permitted  the  infamous  princes  of  the  earth,  the 
"  lords  spiritual  and  temporal,  to  tyrannize  over  the  church :  to 
make  a  mere  tool  of  her :  until  they  made  her  a  degraded,  hack- 
neyed, vile  thing  ;  and  loathsomely  impure.  The  tyrants  of  the 
earth  converted  her  into  "  the  Mother  of  Harlots,  and  abomina- 
tions of  the  earth."  On  her  forehead  the  finger  of  the  Almighty 
has  written  this  name  and  title:  and  an  Atlantic  of  the  priests' 
holy  water  can  never  wash  her  clean  ;  nor  wipe  out  the  title  brand- 
ed on  her  forehead  by  the  hand  of  God. 

These  peculiarities  of  a  false  religion,  show,  that  Romanism  is 
not  the  pure  and  ancient  church  of  Christ.  But  this  is  only  my 
introduction.  The  grand  peculiarities  of  Popery  : — with  your 
good  humored  leave,  I  shall  class  under  ten  heads or.  Gentle- 
men, te?i  horns. 

First. — The  Pope's  supremacy.  Now,  I  give  notice  to  you  and 
my  readers,  that  I  shall  not  stop  to  refute  these.  I  merely  esta- 
blish the  origin  and  date  of  these,  in  order  to  show  that  Pupcry 
proper,  is  a  mere  novelty  in  the  Christian  world.  Our  refutation 
shall  be  offered  when  we  reach  these,  in  "  the  dependency  (A  our 
argument." 

All  Romanists  admit  the  Pope's  supremacy;  but  relative  to  the 


i, 


S16 

authority  attached  to  his  supremacy,  there  is  the  greatest  diversi- 
ty of  sentiment.  There  are  four  kinds  of  faith  touching  it,  among 
them:  one  class  gives  him  a  mere  presidency;  a  second,  an  un- 
limited sovereignty ;  a  third,  makes  the  Pope  equal  to  God ;  a 
fourth,  very  modestly,  makes  the  Pope  actually  superior  to  God ! 
This  I  shall  discuss  again ;  I  shall  wait  to  see  whether  my  learned 
priests  will  venture  out  to  deny  this  division.  Ignorance  of  their 
own  writers  may  very  probably  induce  them  to  deny  this. 

Now  according  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Pope's  supremacy — 
Peter  was  made  the  first  supreme.  And  having  died  in  A.  D.  66, 
he  was  succeeded  by  some  obscure  beings  upon  whose  names  even 
the  Romanists  cannot  agree.  But  the  Holy  Apostle  John  survived 
Peter  at  least  forty  years  ;  and  so  these  obscure  but  absolute  su- 
premos, were  placed  over  this  holy  and  beloved  Apostle.  This 
was  really  outrageous  in  the  Roman  church !  And  moreover, 
this  Apostle  John  has  never  had  the  graQe  of  God  nor  good  sense, 
to  acknowledge  this  supremacy ;  nor  depAl'L"  himself  as  a  dutiful 
son.  On  our  priests'  principles,  Drs.  Power  and  Levins  must  de- 
nounce the  Holy  John,  as  a  rebellious  son  of  Holy  Mother !  What! 
live  40  years,  and  write  so  much  Scripture,  yet  say  not  one  good 
word  for  His  HoHness,  and  his  essential  supremacy  !  Padre  Le- 
vins ought  forthwith  to  excommunicate  his  memory  with  bell, 
book,  and  candle ;  Gentlemen,  why  has  not  this  been  done  ? 

This  is  not  all,  the  early  holy  Councils  stood  out  against  the 
same  supremacy.  About  A.  D.  450,  the  Council  of  Chalcedon 
resisted  Pope  Leo  in  the  question  of  his  supremacy.  In  A.  D.  418, 
the  sixth  Council  of  Carthage,  resisted  three  Popes,  one  after  ano- 
ther. Mighty  opposition  was  directed  against  this  sacerdotal 
usurpation,  by  the  clergy  of  France,  England,  Africa,  and  Asia, 
and  even  Spain,  and  even  Ireland!  So  late  as  A.  D.  860,  the 
Bishops  of  Belgia  denied  that  the  Pope's  decree  should  bind  them: 
they  boldly  denied  his  supremacy,  and  set  his  bulls  at  defiance: — 
"  We  assault  thee,"  said  they  "  with  thine  own  weapons,  who  des- 
pisest  the  decree  of  our  Lord  God."  See  Illy  r.  Catal.  Test.  Verit. 
p.  80;  Morn.  Exer.  p.  223. 

The  best  and  early  fathers  warmly  opposed  the  Pope's  Supre- 
macy. St.  Augustine  was  the  fourth  who  signed  the  famous  de- 
cree of  the  African  Milevitan  Council.  This  decree  was  made 
against  all  appeals  from  the  African  Church,  by  Bishops  or  mem- 
bers, to  the  Pope :  and  it  was  made  in  opposition  to  Popes  Zosi- 
mus,  Boniface,  and  Celestine.  See  Manse's  Collect,  Counc.  Tom. 
iv.  p.  507;  Venet.  edit.  1785. 

Jerome  opposes  it;  Hear  his  words: "  The  Church  of  the  Roman 
city  is  not  to  de  deemed  one  thing,  and  the  church  of  the  whole 
world  another.  Gaul,  Britain,  Africa,  Persia,  India,  and  all  bar- 
barous nations  adore  one  Christ:  and  observe  one  Rule  of  Faith. 


217 

If  you  look  for  authority,  the  world  is  greater  than  a  city  (Rome.) 
Wheresoever  a  Bishop  is,  whether  at  Rome,  or  Constantinople,  or 
Alexandria,  or  Tanais,  he  is  of  the  same  worth  (or  authority)  and 
the  same  priesthood."  "But  all  are  successors  of  the  A])ostles. 
Why  do  you  produce  to  me  the  customs  of  one  city?"  To  Evagr. 
Tom.  ii.  p.  510.  Paris  edit,  of  1602. 

Again,  here  is  "  a  stinger"  from  your  St.  Jerome.  "  Bishops 
should  remember  that  they  are  greater  than  Elders  (Presbyters,) 
rather  by  custom,  than  by  truth  of  the  Lord's  appointment:  and 
that  they  ought  to  rule  the  church  in  common."  On  Titus  Lib.  i. 
cap.  i. 

Hear  Theodore's  memorable  words : — "  Christ  alone  is  head  of 
all:  but  the  Church  in  his  body;  and  the  Saints  are  the  members 
of  his  body;  one  is  the  neck;  another  the  feet;"  "  By  his  legs  un- 
derstand St.  Peter,  the  first  of  the  Apostles."  On  Sol.  Song.  Par. 
Lat.  edit.  1608.  So  far  from  making  Peter  the  head,  he  is  con- 
sidered the  legs,  which  are  supported  by  the  feet,  as  you  well 
know ! 

Then  there  is  TertuUian's  famous  sentence,  which  your  Romish 
w^riters  have  mangled  so  scandalously — supposing  that  we  ignor- 
ant heretics,  had  not  seen,  nor  read  that  honest  witness  against 
your  supremacy.  "  Survey  the  apostolical  churches,  in  which 
the  very  chairs  of  the  apostles  still  preside  over  their  stations ;  in 
which  their  own  epistles  are  recited,  uttering  the  voice  ;  and  repre- 
senting the  presence  of  each  of  them !  Is  Achaia  7iearest  to  theSf 
thou  hast  Corinth.  If  thou  art  not  far  from  Macedo7iia,  thou  hast  the 
Philippians  and  the  Thessalo?iians.  If  thou  canst  go  to  Asia,  thou 
hast  Ephesus.  If  thou  art  near  Italy,  thou  hast  Rome,  whence  to 
us,  also,  authority  is  near  at  hand,"  Pras.  adv.  Her.  Cap.  36,  p. 
215.  Paris  edit.  1675.  Now  it  is  a  notable  circumstance,  that  the 
Romish  writers,  when  they  quote  out  of  Tertullian,  leave  all  out 
that  is  put  here  in  italics ;  namely,  all  but  the  last  sentence,  touch- 
ing Rome ! !  Mr.  Hughes,  of  Philadelphia,  had  his  scourging  lately 
for  doing  this  ! 

I  shall  gratify  you,  gentleman,  with  one  refreshing  quotation 
more.  And  if  you  do  not  give  up  your  Pope's  supremacy  as  uni- 
versal Bishop,  then  on  your  own  principles,  are  }'ou  the  most  ob- 
stinate heretics.  For  I  quote  from  your  own  infalhble  and  holy 
Pope,  and  one  whom  you  have  deified  too,  and  do  invoke  with  in- 
cense, prayers  and  holy  wrestlings ;  I  mean  Pope  St.  Gregory. 
Padre  Levins  very  gravely  tells  us  that  he  loves  antiquities,  and 
all  old  things — were  it  even  like  "  Holy  Mother,"  a  very  old  sin- 
ner! Well,  you  must  know,  that  a  Bishop  of  the  Greek  Church, 
first  claimed  su^)remacy,  and  the  honor  of  universal  Bishop ;  until 
the  Fathers  of  Rome,  pretty  honest  men  at  that  time,  rebuked  his 
iniquitv,  and  shamed  him  out  of  it.  Now  hear  the  infallible  Pope 
28. 


218 

and  Saint  Gregory — who  wrote  this  in  the  close  of  the  6th  century, 
namely  590.  Having  shown  that  Peter,  and  Paul,  and  John  were 
all  members  under  one  head  he  says:  "No  one  desired  to  call  him- 
self the  universal,  or  universal  Bishop."  See  Regist.  Epist.  Lib. 
5,  p.  743,  Tom.  ii.  ^ 

Again,  for  this  is  too  good  to  be  quitted  by  me :  "  I  do  confi- 
dently say  that  whosoever  called  himself  universal  Bishop  ;  or  de- 
sires to  be  called  so,  in  his  pride,  is  the  forerunner  of  anti-christ. 
Because  in  his  pride  he  prefers  himself  to  the  rest ;  and  he  is  con- 
ducted to  error,  by  a  similar  pride.  For  as  the  wicked  one  wishes 
to  appear  a  God  above  all  men ;  so  whosoever  he  is,  who  desires 
to  be  called  the  only  Bishop  (solus  sacerds)  extols  himself  above 
all  other  Bishops."  Lib.  7.  Indict.  Epist.  15.  edit,  of  Paris, 
1705. 

Once  more,  for  this  is  delectable :  In  his  eulogy  to  the  Bishop 
of  Alexandria  he  solemnly  affirms  "that  the  primacy  of  Peter  de- 
scended to  three  Sees ;  namely,  Antioch,  Alexandria,  and  Rome." 
Tom.  ii.  p.  887.  Paris  edit. 

Once  more  ;  for  I  am  determined  that  Pope  St.  Gregory,  if  possi- 
ble, shall  save  you  from  the  mortal  sin  of  holding  the  Roman  Pope's 
supremacy.  Hear  the  holy  saint:  "  If  any  one  in  that  church 
assumes  that  name,"  he  was  speaking  of  universal  Bishop,  "  which 
in  the  opinion  of  all  good  men  he  (his  rival  in  the  East)  has  done ; 
then  the  whole  church;  (may  it  never  happen,)  falls  from  its  state, 
when  he,  who  is  called  universal,  falls.  But  let  that  name  of  blas- 
phemy be  absent  from  the  hearts  of  Christians ;  which,  when  it 
is  really  assumed  by  one,  the  honor  of  all  priests  is  taken  away." 
Regist.  Epist. ;  Lib.  5  ;  Indie.  13  ;  Epist.  20.  Paris  edit.  1705. 

Thus  I  have  proved  by  arguments  and  testimony  from  your 
own  church,  that  the  supremacy,  and  infamous  usurpation  of 
power  by  your  Pope,  is  a  novelty  in  the  Christian  world.  It 
was  not  fully  gained  by  the  "man  of  sin"  until  the  consumma- 
tion of  truth's  overthrow,  in  the  darkest  hour  of  the  darkest 
ages. 

Second ;  The  invocation  of  Saints,  is  a  novelty  introduced 
by  the  "man  of  sin"  also.  This  originated  in  those  bold  and  figu- 
rative expressions,  and  the  apostrophising  of  the  departed  mar^ 
tyrs,  common  among  declamatory  preachers.  Invocation  of  saints 
began  to  show  itself  sometime  after  the  beginning  of  the  third 
century.  It  was  violently  opposed  by  the  truly  faithful,  until  the 
seventh  century :  and  finally,  it  was  established,  in  spite  of  all  op- 
position, only  in  the  9th  century,  when  the  church  was  driven  into 
the  wilderness. 

We  have  the  testimony  of  St.  Augustine  against  you  on  this 
point.     "He  is  the  High  Priest  who  has  entered  within  the  veil; 


219 

and  who  alone  of  those  who  have  appeared  in  the  flesh,  does 
intercede  for  us."  On  Psalms  Ixiv.  vol.  2.  p.  633.  Bened.  edit.  Paris 
1685. 

Athanasius,  in  340,  is  also  against  you :  "God  only  is  to  be  wor- 
shipped; and  ann;cls  themselves  are  aware  of  this;  they  are  all 
creatures  ;  and  arc  not  to  be  worsliippcd ;  but  are  beings  who  do 
worship  God."     Third  Orat.  against  Arians ;  Par.  edit.  1627, 

Theodorct,  in  451,  says:  "The  council  of  Laodicea  also  follow- 
ing this  rule,  and  desiring  to  heal  that  old  disease,  made  a  law,  that 
people  should  not  pray  to  angels ;  nor  forsake  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ."     On  Colos.  3  chap.  Paris  edit.  Lut.  1608. 

St.  Chrysostom  declared  [in  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century,] 
that,  "there  was  no  need  for  minor  intercessors  with  God."' — 
"With  God  it  is  not  thus  ;  for  there  is  no  need  of  intercessors  for 
the  petitioners ;  neither  is  he  so  ready  to  give  a  gracious  an- 
swer, when  entreated  by  others ;  as  by  ourselves  praying  to  him." 
On  Math,  cited  by  Theod.  Eclog.  &c. 

More  full  is  this  saint  on  that  passage  of  "sending  away  the 
woman  of  Canaan."  "Marl\  the  philosophy  of  the  woman  ;  she 
entreats  not  James,  nor  John,  nor  comes  she  to  Peter  ;  she  breaks 
through  the  whole  company  of  them;  and  saying,  I  have  no  need 
of  a  mediator  ;  but  taking  repentance  as  a  spokes  woman,  I  come 
to  the  fountain  itself.  I  have  no  need  of  a  mediator  ;  have  thou 
mercy  on  me."  See  his  Disc,  on  this  part  of  Math.  ch.  15.  Paris 
edit,  1621. 

Gregory  Nysen  denounces  creature  invocation:  "Moses  and 
the  tables,  and  the  law,  and  the  prophets,  the  gospel,  the  decrees 
of  all  the  Apostles  forbid  equally,   our  looking  to  the   creature." 

"The  word  of  God  has  ordained  that  none  of  those  things  which 
have  their  being  by  creation,  shall  be  worshipped  by  men  ;  (Se- 
basmion)  that  is  venerated  by  prayers  or  prayed  to."  See  his  4 
Orat.  in  Eunom.  Tom.  11.  p.  144.  Paris  edit.  cic.  iccxv. 

I  shall  only  add  Epiphanius  of  A.  D.  336.  He  is  a  strong  wit- 
ness against  the  atheism  of  saint  worship,  or  invocation.  "Neith- 
er is  Elias  to  be  worshipped,  although  he  were  alive,  nor  is  John 
to  be  worshipped,  [proskunetos]  bowed  down  before  and  prayed 
to — Nor  is  Theela,  or  any  of  the  saints  to  be  worshipped,  [bowed 
down  before,  or  prayed  to.]  For  that  ancient  error  shall  not 
prevail  ov^er  us  of  forsaking  the  living  god  ;  and  of  worshipping 
creatures.  For  they  worshipped  and  served  the  creature  more 
than  the  Creator,  and  became  fools.  For  if  an  angel  will  not  be 
worshipped,  how  much  more  will  not  she  (the  Virgin  Mary)  who 
was  born  of  Anna?"  See  his  book  against  the  heretics  79.  p. 
443. 

Now,  will  you  permit  me  to  refresh  your  consciences,  gentle- 
men, with  the  contrast  of  Romanism  with  this  primitive  Christian- 


220 

ity  of  the  Fathers?  In  face  of  the  Holy  Bible  in  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  commands  us  not  to  pray  to,  or  worship  creatures,  in  the 
face  of  testimony  of  Councils,  by  the  sainted  fathers,  you  thus 
pray ; — "O  Holy  Mary  ! — obtain  for  us  by  thy  intercession,  light 
to  know  the  great  benefit  which  Christ  has  bestowed  on  us. " 
"O  Holy  Virgin,  obtain  for  us  by  thy  intercession,  that  our  hearts 
maybe  so, visited  by  thy  Holy  Son,  &c."  "O  most  pure  Mother 
of  God!" — What  revolting  blasphemy!  God's  Mother  ! !  Mother 
of  God! !  Paganism  never  breathed  such  Atheism.  God  has 
NO   MOTHER  1      The  infinite  and    invisible    being,  God,   has    no 


MOTHER 


What  a  most  brutish  mind  conceived  this  idea  !  What  a  bru- 
talizing prayer  this  is,  to  teach  men  !  Christ  our  mediator,  as 
man  had  mother ;  but  as  God,  he  had  no  mother.  But  I  go  on. — 
"O  Mother  of  God,  we  beseech  thee,  obtain  for  us,  by  thy  inter- 
cession, grace  to  lead  pure  and  holy  lives,  &c."  Again:  "O 
most  blessed  Virgin,  graciously  vouchsafe  to  help  ustoaccom- 
phsh  the  work  of  our  salvation,  by  thy  powerful  intercession  ! — 
Amen."  See  Dr.  John  Power's  Catholic  Manual ;  Rosary  of  the 
B.  Virgin. 

The  following  I  copy  from  "the  Roman  Cathohc  prayer  book, 
or  devout  Christian's  Vade  Mecum.'"  It  will  be  seen  how  Dr. 
Power,  and  the  Philadelphia  book  differ  in  translating  the  same 
passage.  Will  the  Bishops  not  take  care,  and  look  after  such 
Pope-daring  innovations  ! — "O  most  blessed  Virgin,  graciously 
vouchsafe  to  negociate  for,  and  with  us,  the  work  of  our  salvation, 
by  thy  powerful  intercession  !  Amen." 

Again  ;  "Confiding  in  thy  goodness  and  mercy,  I  cast  myself 
at  thy  sacred  feet,  and  do  most  humbly  supplicate  thee,  O  Mother 
of  the  eternal  Word,  to  adopt  me  as  thy  child  ;  and  take  upon 
thee,  the  care  of  my  salvation."  "O  God,  grant,  we  beseech  thee, 
by  the  Virgin  Mary,  his  mother,  that  we  may  receive  the  joys  of 
eternal  life,  by  the  same  Christ  our  Lord." 

I  copy  the  following  from  the  Litany  of  our  Lady  of  Lorretto. 
— The  Litany  means  a  solemn  supplicatory  prayer.  "Holy  Mo- 
ther of  God,  pray  for  us  !— Mother  of  our  Creator,  pray  for  us  !— 
Mother  of  our  Redeemer  pray  for  us  !— Mirror  of  Justice ! 
pray  for  us !— Seat  of  wisdom,  pray  for  us  !  Ark  of  the  covenant, 
pray  for  us— Gate  of  heaven,  pray  for  us !  Refuge  of  sinners, 
pray  for  us  1  &c.  &c." 

But  this  is  not  the  worst;  one  thing  I  am  prepared  to  show 
that  the  various  Roman  works  which  appear  in  English,  are  de- 
signed to  impose  on  Protestants,  and  to  conceal  the  real  doctrines 
of  Rome.  Only  look  into  their  Latin  books,— there  you  behold 
their  frightful  idolatry,  in  its  full  growth,  and  perfection.  Here 
IS  a  sj^ecimen :  Holy   Mother,— Ora  patrem,  jube  filio,— pray  to 


221 

the  father  for  us,  and  command  thy  son,  &c."  Again  :— ''0  feHx 
puerpera,  nostra  plans  scelera,  jure  matris  impera  Rcdemptori!  O 
happy  Mother,  atoning  for  our  crinics,  lay  thy  commands  on  the 
Redeemer,  in  right  of  thy  being  his  Mother."  And  to  consum- 
mate what  all  heathenism  never  conceived,  in  their  comparative 
piety,  a  Roman  saint,  namely,  Bonaventura,  whom  the  pious  and 
faithful  do  worship  on  July  14  annually,— has  gone  over  the 
Psalms  of  David  ;  has  stricken  out  Lord,  God,  &c.  and  has  in- 
serted Holy  Mother,  our  Lady,  &c.  Thus  :  "In  thee,  O  Lady,  do 
I  put  my  trust,  &c." — "Let  our  'Lady  arise  :  let  her  enemies  be 
'  scattered,  &:c."  "O  come  let  us  sing  unto  our  Lady :  and  make 
a  joyful  noise  unto  the  queen  of  our  salvation!!"  Psalm  110. 
"Tiie  Lord  said  unto  my  Lady,  sit  thou  on  my  right  hand,  &c. 
&c.  !  !  !  [Sec.  Bonav.  psalt.  of  the  B.  Virgin  ;  his  works,  Tom. 
vii.  Rom.  edit,  of  1588.  And  Ilist.  Sec.  Char.  August,  de  Comer. 
B.  M.  Virg.     And  Morn.  Ex.  p.  523 

And,  lest  these  may  be  deemed  too  antiquated,  I  shall  show 
that,  in  all  that  is  idolatrous  and  wicked,  the  Romish  Church 
is  immutable.  The  present  Pope,  Gregory  XVI.  in  the  Circular 
sent  forth  on  his  entering  upon  his  office,  solemly  rendered  his 
adorations  to  the  Holy  Virgin  ;  and  calls  upon  all  the  Clergy  to 
implore, — "that  she  who  has  been  in  every  calamity,  our  Patron 
and  Protectress  may  watch  over  us, — and  lead  our  minds,  by 
her  heavenly  influence,  to  those  counsels  which  may  prove  most 
salutary  to  Christ's  ftock."  "That  all  may  have  a  happy  and  suc- 
cessful issue,  let  us  raise  our  eyes  to  the  Most  Blessed  Virgin 
Mary;  who  alone  destroys  heresies  !  Who  is  our  greatest 
HOPE  !  Yea  the  entire  ground  of  our  hope  !"  See  Laity's 
Directory,    1833. 

Third  :— The  use  of  images  in  the  churches  is  a  novelty.  Here 
I  must  be  brief  The  best  of  the  fathers  condemn  the  use  of  images: 
one  Council  in  A.  D.  300  condemn  the  use  of  pictures  in  churches. 
In  700  the  Council  of  Constantinople  solemnly  condemned  them: 
and  ordered  their  expulsion  from  the  churches.  In  754  the 
seventh  Greek  General  Council  solemnly  condemned  image  use 
and  worship.  About  the  ninth  century  this  idolatry  seems  to 
have  been  established. 

Fourth: — the  doctrite  of  Purgatory  is  a  mere  novelty.  I  shall, 
in  due  time,  if  requisite,  produce  nine  of  the  best  fathers  against  it, 
with  »St.  Augustine  at  their  head.  It  is  most  manifestly  borrowed 
from  the  pagan  fire  purification  of  souls.  And  it  has  been  a  terri- 
fic screw  in  sacerdotal  hands  to  extract  from  trembling  mortals, 
more  money,  than,  perhaps,  all  the  African  slave  trade  ever  has 
accumulated  !  These  two  evils,  namely,  slavery  and  the  Priests' 
fiction  of  purgatory,  have  been  permitted  by  the  wrath  of  Heaven 
to   be  let  in  upon    a   guilty  world !     The   one   dealt   in   human 


222 

bones,  and  sinews,  and  blood ;  the  other,  as  St.  John  saw  in 
vision,  traded  in  human  souls  ! !  The  lust  of  gold  is  the  object  of 
both  !  This  golden  doctrine  of  Popery,  is  only  some  four  hundred 
years  old.  It  was  ultimately  established  in  Rome  by  the  Council 
of  Florence,  A.  D.  1430. 

Fifth: — Priests' Cfxtbacy — that  capital  "old  bachelor's  joke,'' 
which  vexes  padre,  yes  father  Levins,  so  much.  This  is  a  diaboli- 
cal usurpation  of  freemen's  rights,  to  which  none  but  the  most 
heartless  of  the  species—men,  I  can  scarcely  call  them — have 
yielded  a  wicked  and  slavish  submission.  Every  priest  knows 
that  it  is  not  only  uncommanded  in  the  Bible ;  but  it  is  set  down  as 
a  striking  characteristic  mark  of  anti-christ.  The  great  apostacy 
from  Christianity,  was  to  be  known  by  "forbidding  to  marry! !" 
And  every  one  knows,  who  has  looked  into  history,  that  the  Pope 
Gregory  VII.  in  the  year  1674,  made  this  infamous  usurpation  on 
the  rights  of  man ;  and  took  away  marriage  from  the  priests.  So 
that  this  same  celibacy  of  priests  is  only  some  763  years 
old.  Before  that,  every  priest,  Hke  other  honest  men,  had  his 
own  wife.  Since  that,  they  have  been  "holy  fathers"  without 
wives ! 

Sixth  and  Seventh: — Transubstantiation  and  the  Mass.  This 
grand  peculiarity  of  Popery  is  a  mere  novelty  also,  in  the  religious 
world,  not  only,  but  even  in  the  rational  w^orld.  A  doctrine 
which  represents  the  priest's  creating  his  Creator ;  and  making  a 
wafer  to  be  really  the  human  flesh  of  Christ;  and  which,  there- 
fore, by  their  own  confession,  makes  men  cannibals  ! !  I  am  per- 
fectly grave,  gentlemen.  I  ask  you,  what  it  is,  in  the  wafer, 
w^hen  you  put  it,  with  awful  solemnity,  on  the  tongue  of  the  hum- 
ble faithful?  You  reply  that  it  is  "the  flesh  and  blood  really  and 
truly  of  Christ's  human  nature."  Then  does  not  every  one  see 
that  they  eat,  and  swallow  down  human  flesh?  If  that  makes 
them  not  cannibals,  then  words  have  lost  their  meaning,  and  you 
have  lost  your  senses,  reason,  and  all  ! ! 

Against  this  monstrous  and  most  disgusting  doctrine  of  the 
Mass,  I  can  produce  seventeen  of  your  early  and  best  fathers, 
namely  from  Ireneus  to  St.  Augustine.  It  began  about  the  middle 
of  the  fifth  century;  ripened  by  degrees  unto  the  ninth;  and 
along  with  Auricular  Confession,  with  all  the  mischief,  and  wick- 
edness, transubstantiation  and  the  mass  were  established  into  a  doc- 
trine of  the  church  by  the  decree  of  Pope  Innocent  III.  in  the 
fourth  Council  of  the  Lateran,  in  the  year  1215.  See  Mosh.  iii. 
p.  143.  Glas.  Edit.  And  hence,  they  maybe  said  to  be  618  years 
old  ! 

Eighth  :  The  taking  away  the  wine  or  holy  cup  in  the  sacra- 
ment of  the  Holy  Supper  is  a  novelty.     Pope  Gelasius  in  the  year 


223 

iOS^  pronounced  this  abstraction  of  the  cup  ''an  impious  sacri- 
lege."    See  Corp.  Juris  Can.  Pars  3,  Dist.  3. 

Ninth:  The  adoratiox  of  Relics  was  introduced  about  the 
same  time  \vitli  the  invocation  of  saints;  and  arose  from  the  y)er- 
version  of  mementos,  or  keepsakes  left  by  martyrs.,  and  those  dear 
to  the  church.  To  adore  rehcs,  or  venerate  them  rehgiously  is 
to  adore  dust  and  ashes  !  So  says  St.  Augustine :  "Timeo  adorare 
terram,  &c.  I  fear  to  adore  earth  lest  He  (God)  condemn  me." 
The  Council  ofCarth.,  5,  Can.  14,  says:— "Placuit,  &c.  It  has 
pleased  us  to  request  the  most  renowned  emperor  that  relics  may 
be  taken  away,  not  only  such  as  are  kept  in  shrines,  and  images  ; 
but  in  w^hat  place  soever,  woods,  or  trees."  Willet  p.  391.  So 
late  as  the  year  730  the  Synod,  or  Council,  summoned  by  the 
Emperor  Leo  III.  did,  with  only  one  dissenting  voice  decree  that 
"the  worship  of  images  and  relics  was  mere  idolatry."  This  decree 
was  fully  enforced  by  Leo ;  and  the  churches  w^ere  purified  effect- 
ually of  them.     See  Morn.  Exer.  p.  257  Lon.  edit. 

Tenth  and  last: — The  keeping  the  bible  in  a  dead  language, 

AND     REFUSING    THE  FREE  AND    UNLIMITED    PERUSAL    OF    God's    HoLY 

Word,  is  a  mere  novelty  in  the  church.  This  usurpation,  so  cha- 
racteristic of  ghostly  tyranny,  which  denies  to  the  laity  the  holy 
Bible  is  condemned  by  the  uniform  tenor  of  Scriptures.  And  I 
can  produce  thirteen  of  the  most  eminent  Greek  and  Latin  fa- 
thers, who  maintain  Scriptures  to  be  the  sufficient  Rule  of  Faith; 
and  who  insist  on  all  men  pei  using  and  studying  them.  Of  these 
the  most  prominent,  and  eloquently  persuasive,  are  St.  Augistine 
and  Chrysostom.  These  shall  be  produced,  if  the  priests  gainsay 
this. 

Thus,  I  trust,  I  have  succeeded  in  establishing  my  position  that 
Popery  characterised  by  these  peculiarities,  is  a  mere  novelty  in 
the  Christian  world. 

Where  was  your  religion  before  Luther?"  This  hackneyed 
question  put  by  Roman  Catholics,  has  been  answered  thus  : — 1st. 
By  a  counter  question, — "  Where  was  your  face  this  morning,  be- 
fore it  was  washed."  2d.  "  It  is  found,  where  your  religion  never 
can  be  found  ;  namely,  in  the  holy  Bible."  8d.  "  It  has  been  found- 
in  that  unbroken  line  of  faithful  and  holy  men,  descended  from 
the  Italic  Church  ;  and  perpetrated,  in  the  line  of  the  Waldenses, 
Albigenses,  and  Lollards  ;  not  omitting  the  faithful  in  the  Greek, 
the  African,  and  old  Syriac  Churches. 

I  shall  conclude  this  letter  in  the  bold  words  of  Voctius,  to 
which  all    sound   and  intelligent  Christians  will  subscribe :     "In 

THE  FIRST  SIX  HUNDRED  YEARS  OF  OUR  ERA,  THERE  WAS  NO  CHURCH, 
NO  ONE  DOCTOR,  NO  ONE  MARTYR,  NO  CONFESSOR,  NO  ONE  FAMILY,  NO 
ONE  MEMBER  OF    THE  CHURCH  ;     NEITHER  IN  THE   WeST,    NOR  IN     ANY 


224 

OTHER  PART    OF  THE  WORLD,  THAT  WAS  PROPERLY,    AND    FORMERLY    A 

Papist.         I  am,  gentlemen,  yours  truly,  &c. 

W.  C.  BROWNLEE, 

A3Iinister  of  the  Collegiate  Middle  and  North  Dutch  Church, 
New  York,  May  14,  1833. 


Reply  of  JDrSm  Power  and   l^evinSj 

TO   DR.    BROWNLEE. 

No.  8. 

A  corrupt  man  loveth  not  one  that  reproveth  him:  nor  will  he  goto  the  wise.  Prov.—lS.  12. 

Rev.  Sir, — In  your  peregrinations  over  the  uphills  and  downhills 
of  life,  your  philosophic  mind  has  not,  probably,  been  idly  inatten- 
tive to  the  effects  often  produced  by  officious  ifriendship.  If  vigi- 
lant it  must  have  discovered  that  the  interference  of  an  officious 
friend  is  seldom  directed  by  prudence ;  and,  hence,  in  place  of 
conferring  benefit,  inflicts  real  injury  on  the  object  of  its  zeal.  It 
must  have  ascertained,  that,  often  it  were  better  to  encounter  the 
open  and  avowed  hostility  of  an  enemy  than  submit  to  the  inter- 
posing protection  of  a  good  nalured  andvery  kind  friend.  "Save 
me  from  my  friends"  is  registered  among  the  philosophic  sayings 
vulgarly  named  proverbs — of  a  grave  and  wise  people. 

Whether  you.  Rev.  Preacher  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church, 
have  ever  been  afflicted  w^ith  the  evils  arising  out  of  officious 
friendship,  is  a  knowledge  not  very  interesting  to  us,  but  it  is  our 
opinion,  and  will,  we  are  sure,  be  seconded  by  the  judgment  of 
your  "Christian  public," — your  "  Protestant  Rule  of  Faith,"  may 
fitly  address  you  in  the  words  of  the  proverb,  "  save  me  from  my 
friends."  Eight  long  and  tedious  letters  have  been  spun  by  the 
patent  machinery  of  "Protestant  lesson  and  logic"  from  your 
cranial  cobwebs — you  have  written  de  omni  scibile,  tilted  with 
every  weapon  in  the  rusted  armory  of  polemics  from  proofless 
assertion  to  gross  abuse,  from  the  dogmatic  ipse  dixit  to  the  ob- 
scene insinuation, from  the  faithless  quotation  to  the  more  faithless 
and  ribald  tale,  from  the  affected  lisping  of  the  sleek  Religionist 
to  the  shout  and  growl  of  the  pitch  and  brimstone  Puritan,' — yet 
your  unfortunate  Rule  of  Faith  is  still  unproven,  still  as  infirm 
in  the  strength  of  argument  as  the  imbecility  of  an  infant's  mind. 
Had  you  not,  in  an  evil  hour,  though  chivalously,  proclaimed 
your  "challenge,"  your  Rule  might  have  rested  in  obscurity,  and 
enjoyed  the  respect  which  obscurity,  at  times,  secures;  it  might 
have  excited  no  misgivings  in  the  minds  of  the  members  of  the 


225 

Middle  Dutch  Church  and  your  "Christian  public."  Even  you, 
mighty  Erudite  in  the  "Hebrew  and  Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost," 
might  have  stricken  deep  root  in  the  hotbed  oi^  literary  and  bibli- 
cal lame,  had  not  you  set  your  lance  in  rest  for  polemic  tourna- 
ment. Had  you,  in  place  of  ambitioning  theological  renown, 
pondered  on  the  words  of  the  inspired  sage, — "even  a/oo/,  if  he 
will  hold  his  peace  shall  be  counted  ic'ise;  and  if  he  close  his 
lips  a  man  of  understanding. ''  Pro  v.  xvii.  28,  you  might,  pos- 
sibly, have  secured  the  reputation  to  which  they  allude.  Had 
the  limits  of  intellect  fixed  by  nature  been  respected,  you  might 
have  risen  to  planetary  distinction  among  your  ''virtuous  ladies;" 
while  they,  like  faithful  satellites,  obedient  to  the  great  law  of  at- 
traction, would  have  performed  their  cycles  and  epicycles 
around  the  orb  of  their  adoration,  and  illustrated  what  ancient 
poets  had  sung  of  the  music  of  the  spheres.  But  sad  to  tell,  the 
limits  prescribed  by  nature  were  disregarded;  its  voice  was  un- 
heeded. Ambition  whispered  it  fascinations  and  distinctions — 
and  like  a  brighter  star,  in  a  purer  firmament,  the  Preacher  in 
the  Middle  Dutch  Church  fell.  Here,  however,  the  contrast 
ends.  The  lost  archangel  fell,  and  was,  in  the  subhme  language 
of  Milton, 

"Majestic  though  in  ruin;" 

the  polemical  athlete  of  the  Calvinistic  cause  fell,  and  #  *  * 
Will  the  members  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church  fill  up  the  hiatus  in 
the  way  of  epitaph  on  their  Preacher,  ''Writer^''  and  '' Ge?itlema?i  V 

We  are  aware.  Rev.  Gentleman,  of  the  sorrows  and  afflictions 
of  soul  which  now  haunt  you,— of  your  regrets  for  disregard  of 
the  monitions  of  your  interior  spirit  when  you  provoked  your 
antagonists  to  engage  in  controversial  conflict.  We  pity — for 
we  have  pity  for  you — the  reputation  you  have  lost  by  the  con- 
test; and,  to  enhance  your  estimate  of  the  worth  of  this  pity,  we 
blend  it  with  the  consolation  offered  by  the  classical  Junius  to 
Sir  Wm.  Draper,  "if  you  rest  on  a  bed  of  tortures,  you  have  made 
it   for  yourself." 

An  inordinate  selfishness  for  the  bubble  of  distinction,  a  de- 
ranged or  vitiated  appetite  for  polemical  notoriety,  and  the  bra- 
ves of  the  few  ignorant  and  fanatical  bigots,  who  cheered  your 
misrepresentations  of  the  Catholic  creed  at  the  meetings  of  the 
Protestant  Association,  have  been,  as  FalstafT  says,  "the  ruin  of 
you."  Borne  from  conventicle  to  prayer  meeting  on  the  dis- 
eased fame  of  their  report,  you  surrendered  your  saner  judg- 
ment to  the  captivity  of  flattery,  and  despite  of  a  severe  experi- 
ence, not  only  imagined  yourself  the  Sampson  Agonistes  of  the 
Calvinistic  theology,  but,  really  familiar  with  the  "Hebrew  and 
Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost"!!!  Estimating  the  prowess  of  the 
No.  15—29 


226 

Calvinistic  Sampson  by  his  feats  performed  in  the  present  con- 
troversy, his  praises  may  be  a  theme  worthy  of  the  inspired 
howl  of  a  camp  meeting,  but  they  cannot  aspire  to  the  monopoly 
of  a  canticle  in  the  Middle  Dutch  Churchi—it  is  feared  his  ''virtu- 
ous ladies"  have  applied  their  scissors  to  his  love  locks.  His 
familiarity  with  the  ''Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost"  we  must  doubt 
until  he  proves  a  discrepancy  between  it  and  the  Greek  of  Homer 
and  Demosthenes, — at  least  between  it  and  the  Greek  of  the 
"gr^ca  majora."  This  hint  will  not  be  mystery  one  hundred 
leagues   from  New  Brunswick. 

Since  we  are  in  the  vein  of  imparting  kindly  monition  and 
council  to  you,  Rev.  Preacher,  allow  us  the  liberty  of  indulging 
in  it  a  little  longer;  and,  though,  like  Brutus,  you  "are  sick  of 
many  griefs,"  hear  with  patience  and  civihty  becoming  the  "Gen- 
tleman" and  "Writer"  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church.  Receive 
our  best  assurances  that  we  are  solicitous  for  your  welfare  as 
well  on  earth  as  in  a  future  world.  It  is  zeal,  not  zealotry,  for 
your  happiness,  which  urges  us  to  this  task, — and  the  task  is,  to 
point  out  the  errors  of  your  former  letters  that  they  may  be 
avoided  by  your  interior  spirit  while  inditing  those  which  yet  are 
to  be  presented  to  your  "Christian  public."  Had  your  last  letter 
contained  any  matter  relevant  to  the  subject  at  issue — your  Rule 
of  faith — this  recurrence  to  your  past  letters  would  not  have  been 
made, — but  finding  it  a  mere  register,  crude  and  false,  of  things 
not  bearing  on  the  topic  under  immediate  discussion,  it  is  consign- 
ed to  the  disregard  it  merits.  It  suits  your  purpose,  because 
you  cannot  prove,  on  the  principles  of  your  Protestant  Rule  of 
Faith,  the  Bible  to  be  the  word  of  God,  to  wander  into  irrelevant 
matter,  and  divert  the  attention  of  the  members  of  the  Middle 
Dutch  Church  from  the  real  point  under  discussion.  But  you 
have  already  been  informed  we  are  of  the  Old  School  ; — we 
will  not  follow  in  a  false  train.  Your  Protestant  Rule  of  Faith 
shall  first  be  canvassed.  You  are  the  ch'allenger.  Let  this 
be  borne  in  mind  by  your  "Christian  public."  If  you  neglect  the 
"speciaHty  of  rule,"  your  example  shall  not  influence  us.  A 
decision  has  already  been  passed  on  your  form  of  procedure  in 
the  present  controversy  by  every  instructed  mind,  by  those  of 
your  own  flock,  by  the  enlightened  and  unprejudiced  among 
your  own  clerical  brethren.  We  recur  to  your  past  letters  to 
again  exhibit  your  illogical  inferences,  proofless  assertions,  and  reck- 
lessness of  truth,  to  again  "insert  the  hook  in  your  nose." 

In  your  first  letter  you  stated  your  Rule  of  Faith;  it  is,  accor- 
ding to  your  definition,  "the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  to  us  in  the 
written  Word  of  God,  the  Holy  Scriptures."  Conscious  of  the 
difficulty,  imbecility,  and  infirmity  inherent  in  your  Rule,  for 
by  it  the  Scripture  is  submitted  to  the  judgment  of  every  indivi- 


227 

dual,  learned  and  ignorant,  enlightened  and  stupid,  you  boldly 
assert  there  is  no  obscurity  in  the  Scripture;  and  to*  deter  the 
timid  and  ignorant  from  susj^icion  of  the  infalHbilily  of  your  asser- 
tion, you  proclaim  it  ''a  cliarge  (urainst  the  Iluly  Ghost  to  charge 
the  Scriptures  with  obscurity  and  deficiency  !" 

We  seriously  and  designedly  call  the  attention  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church  to  the  import  of  the  words  now 
cited  from  the  logical  Preacher's  first  letter.  They,  and  all  Cal- 
vinists,  are  requested  to  observe  the  contradictory  collision  be- 
tween it  and  the  words  describing  his  Rule.  In  stating  his 
Rule  he  thus  writes— "if  there  beany  thing  7iot  so  plai?i,  at'first 
view  as  /rr/.<;A,  1  compare  parallel  passages,  and  evoke  the  mea?ii?ig 
by  all  proper  means."  Is  there  not  a  direct  and  express  ad- 
mission oiohscuriiij  in  the  Scripture  stated  in  the  preceding  words? 
He  ^'compares  parallel  passages."  Why?  Because  there  is  some- 
thing '^7iot  so  plain  as  he  wishes,"  in  other  words,  because  there  is 
obscurity.  But  farther ;  Why  does  he  compare  parallel  pas- 
sages? To  "evolve  the  meaning,"  that  is,  the  meainng  could  not 
be  discovered  without  the  comparison  of  parallel  passages, 
which  is  a  plain  admission  of  obscurity  in  the  Scripture!  Here 
then  is  direct  proof  from  the  Preacher's  own  words  stating  his 
own  Rule  of  Faith,  that  there  is  obscurity  in  the  Scripture,  and, 
yet,  within  three  lines  of  where  this  is  admitted,  he  writes,  "to 
charge  the  Holy  Scriptures  with  obscurity  or  deficiency,  would  be 
to  bring  a  charge  against  the  Holy  Ghost."  Would  not  this  con- 
tradiction be  derided  were  it  affirmed  by  a  child?  and  yet  its  au- 
thor is  Preacher  Brownlee  the  "Writer  and  Gentleman"  of  the 
Middle  Dutch  Church— the  Erudite  in  the  "Hebrew  and  Greek 
of  the  Holy  Ghost;"  the  Sampson  Agonistes  of  the  ''virtuous  la- 
dies" who  sanctioned  the  obscene  fiction,  Lorette, — the  invinci- 
ble Pound  Text  of  the  Protestant  Association  ! 

He  compares  parallel  passages  to  evolve  the  meaning,  and 
yet,  in  the  teeth  of  his  own  prescribed  and  defined  procedure, 
he  affirms  there  is  no  obscurity  in  the  Scripture!  If  there  were 
no  obscurity  why  should  the  passages  be  compared?  If  there 
were  710  obscurity,  one  passage  w^ould  be  as  clear  and  evident  in 
its  meaning,  as  the  other;  and,  hence,  a  comparison  of  parallel 
passages  equally  clear  and  evident  would  be  an  absurd  process 
to  evolve  a  meaning  which  was  already  known  without  the  aid 
of  comparison.  Had  Spurzheim  lived,  an  examination  of  the 
Preacher's  cranial  out-works  and  facial  redoubt  might  have  been 
the  basis  of  a  new  craniological  system, — sed  non  voluere  Parcae. 

Since,  then,  by  the  very  terms  of  your  Protestant  Rule  of 
Faith,  most  logical  "  Writer,''^  tiie  Bible  is  solely,  the  foundation 
of  the  Calvinistic  reliiiion,  and  since  tliis  Bible,  bv  the   terms  of 


228 

your  Rule,  is  obscure,  will  you  condescend  to  inform  us  and  the 
"  Christian  public,"  how  an  ignorant  Calvinist  can  glean  the  arti- 
cles of  his  creed  from  the  Bible  ?  This  Calvinist  maybe  unable  to 
read.  How  is  he  to  "  compare  parallel  passages  ?"  He  cannot  prove 
the  Bible  to  be  the  Word  of  God !  You  have  not  proved  it,  though 
you  desired  us  to  " see  Bishop  JVewtoUi^  and  asserted,  " you  knew 
the  Bible  to  he  the  Word  of  God  from  the  external  evidence  of 
miracles  wrought  by  the  inspired  writers,  and  which  were  continu- 
ed down  to  the  time  of  St.  Austin,  who  saw  some  wrought !"  Do 
inform  us,  most  critical  Preacher,  who  was  the  inspired  writer 
living  and  performing  miracles  down  to  the  time  of  St.  Austin. 
This  is  the  third  iteration  of  this  query !  It  strictly  bears  on  your 
Rule  of  Faith, — and,  like  your  interrogatories,  is  not  foreign  to 
the  subject  under  discussion.  We  hope  the  members  of  the  Mid- 
dle Dutch  Church  will  second  our  request. 

Having  shown  from  the  terms  stating  your  Rule  of  Faith,  that 
there  is  obscurity  in  the  Bible,  it  is  unnecessary  to  quote  those 
Scriptural  passages,  in  which  obscurity  is  expressly  affirmed.  At 
present  we  shall  restrict  ourselves  to  a  mere  reference ; — for 
example,  to  the  vision  of  the  four  living  creatures  in  the  first  chap- 
ter of  the  prophet  Ezekiel, — the  weeks  of  Daniel, — the  Apoca- 
lypse,— the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul — the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  8  chap. 
30,  31  verses, — the  2d  Epistle  of  St  Peter,  3d  chap.  16  verse, — 
1  Cor.  15  chap  29  verse, — the  two  parallel  passages  in  St.  Paul's 
epistle  to  the  Romans,  2d.  chap.  13  verse,  and  3d  chap.  28  verse. 
Let  any  individual,  learned  or  ignorant,  reflect  on  the  passages 
to  which  reference  has  just  been  made,  and  it  is  not  possible  the 
assertion  of  Preacher  Brownlee  can  be  admitted— the  Scriptures 
are  not  obscure. 

The  contradictions  involved  in  your  Rule  of  Faith,  Rev.  "  Gew- 
tleman,^''  have,  in  the  series  of  our  letters  received  the  attentions 
they  appeared  to  merit,  at  times  serious,  and,  again,  in  the  tone 
of  a  lighter  mood.  As  they  are  of  grave  importance  to  those 
who  build  their  creed  on  the  basis  of  your  Protestant  Rule,  as 
they  blend  with  consequences  having  an  eternal  duration,  it  can- 
not be  out  of  place  to  again  allude  to  them,  since,  as  has  already 
been  observed,  your  last  letter  is  guiltless  of  containing  any  mat- 
ter bearing  on  the  subject  in  dispute — our  Rule  of  Faith. 

The  Bible  being  your  Rule  of  Faith,  you,  by  your  principles, 
derive  all  your  articles  of  creed  from  the  Bible,  that  is,  if  consis- 
tent, if  logical,  you  will  admit  nothing  into  your  creed  but  what 
is  deduced  legitimately  and  expressly  from  the  Bible.  Is  this  sta- 
ted fairly?  If  not,  we  shall  be  pleased  to  have  the  error  noted. 
You  write  in  your  first  letter,  and  immediately  after  stating  your 

Rule,  "  THE  BIBLE  CONTAINS  THE   WHOLE   RELIGION    OF   THE    PROTES- 


229 

tANT.^'  Now,  //  is  an  article  of  your  creed,  or  in  other  terms,  of 
your  religion,  to  believe  the  Bible  to  be  the  Word  of  God,  yet,  this 
article  of  your  creed  you  cannot  deduce  from  the  Bible,  for  it 
cannot  prove  its  own  authenticity,  inspiration,  or  canonicity. 
Your  failure  in  proof  is  notorious  to  all  who  have  read  your  let- 
ters. The  intrinsic  evidence  contained  in  the  Bible  itself  is  not 
sufiicient;  and  this  you  have  admitted  by  recurring  to  the  testi- 
mony of  certain  churches,  or,  in  other  words,  to  tradition.  You 
admit,  then,  as  an  article  of  your  creed,  that,  which  is  not  derived 
from  your  Rule  of  Faith,  therefore,  your  Protestant  Rule  is  defec- 
tive ;  it  does  not  determine  all  the  articles  of  religion  necessary 
to  salvation,  and  consequently,  is  not  a  safe  guide  to  a  future 
world;  it  is  folly,  it  is  rashness,  it  is  madness,  to  trust  to  it.  If 
this  conclusion  be  false,  prove  its  defects.  Again,  if  consistent 
and  LOGICAL  in  the  strict  adoption  of  your  Protestant  Rule  of  Faith, 
you  really,  truly  exclude  the  divine  character  of  the  Scripture, 
since  this  divine  character  cannot  be  established  from  its  intrinsic 
evidence ;  therefore,  if  you  strictly  adhere  to  your  Rule  of  Faith, 
you  Rev.  Preacher,  and  all  who  adopt  this  rule,  are  deists  and 
INFIDELS.  This  inference  is  fairly  legitimate,  fairly  deduced  from 
your  principles.  We  recommend  it  to  the  members  of  the  Middle 
Dutch  Church,  and  your  "  Christian  public."  If  you  can,  exhibit 
its  defects,  but  not  as  you,  hitherto,  have  done,  by  assertion,  and 
appeal  to  the  prejudice  and  passions  of  Calvinistic  bigotry.  Let 
there  be  some  form  of  argument  not  degrading  to  a  tutored  mind, 
something  worthy  of  a  preacher  in  the  Middle  Dutch  Church, 
something  widely  differing  from  the  "  Protestant  lesson  and  logic" 
of  your  eight  crude  and  abortive  letters.  While  concocting  your 
next  epistle,  we  would  counsel  you  to  discard  the  whisperings  of 
your  interior  spirit,  it  may  not  be  a  spirit  of  light,  and  when  there, 
is  no  light,  there  can  be  no  logic,  no  consistency,  no  argument. 
Seek  the  critical  advice  of  some  of  your  more  instructed  brethren. 
Their  experience  and  sager  judgment  may  profit  you ;  they  may 
lessen  the  number  of  your  contradictions,  and  aid  you  in  discrimi- 
nating between  assertion  and  argument.  This  will  not  diminish 
the  profound  polemical  reputation  you  have  so  meritoriously 
earned.  We  also  would  recommend  a  sligld  bias  to  truth,  it  can- 
not injure ;  and  gently  would  we  hint  a  more  familiar  intimacy 
with  modest  suspicion  of  your  mental  excellencies.  In  short, 
since  you  have  now  been  schooled,  study  wisdom  and  abandon 
folly.  The  inspired  sage  says,  "It  is  better  to  meet  a  bear  robbed 
ofher  whelps,  than  a/ooZ  trusting  in  his  own/o//?/."  Pro  v.  xvii.  12. 
But  there  are,  yet,  other  contradictions  connected  with  your 
Rule  of  Faith  that  demands  our  attention. 

In  your  abortive  efforts  to  prove  the  Bible  to  be  the  word  of 
God,  you  are  forced  to  sock  the  aid  of  tradition !    Were  you 


230 

guilty  of  no  inconsistency  in  seeking  this  aid  ?  You  are  referred 
to  your  first  letter,  where  you  and  the  members  of  the  Middle 
Dutch  Church  may  read  the  following,  not  very  gentlemanly  pas- 
sage. It  is  an  illustrative  specimen  of  your  dogmatic  intemper- 
ance. "  As  for  TRADITIONS  and  oral  laws,"  writes  the  "gentleman," 
"we  will  treat  them  with  the  same  respect  as  we  do  the  Koran  of 
Mahommed,  until  the  evidence  of  their  divinity  be  pronounced 
and  established  by  prophecy,  tongues,  and  miracles ;  and  the  fact 
be  confirmed  that  God  gave  them  to  the  Church  of  Christ  for  a 
Rule."  Tradition  is  used  by  the  Preacher  in  the  Middle  Dutch 
Church  to  establish  the  Divine  character  of  the  Bible,  and,  yet, 
he  stigmatizes  tradition  in  terms  of  insolent  contempt !  He  "  treats 
tradition  with  the  same  respect  as  the  Koran  of  Mahommed,"  and, 
yet,  this  insulted  and  despised  tradition  is  used  in  a  cause  the  most 
interesting  to  a  Christian !  He  salutes  his  opponents  with  the 
most  opprobrious  terms  when  they  allude  to  his  interior  spirit  and 
his  intimacy  with  the  "  Hebrew  and  Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost," 
and,  yet,  he  props  his  Rule  of  Faith,  the  Bible,  by  an  evidence 
which  he  mocks  and  condemns!  Has  Deism,  in  its  most  envenomed 
hatred  to  the  Bible,  done  any  thing  more  base,  dishonorable,  and 
revolting  ?     Truly  did  the  poet  sing, 

"  Fools  rush  in  where  angels  fear  to  tread." 

We  ask  Preacher  Brownlee  and  the  members  of  the  Middle 
Dutch  Church,  we  ask  his  ^^  virtuous  ladies,"  does  it  indicate  san- 
ity of  mind  to  adopt  an  evidence  denounced  as  worthless,  by  him 
who  uses  this  evidence,  an  evidence  degraded  to  the  level  of  the 
Koran  ?  Can  contradiction  and  truth,  inconsistency  and  the  form 
of  sound  words,  abide  together?  If  they  do,  then  Dr.  Brownlee 
is  a  gifted  and  distinguished  ^^  Gentleman, ^^  a  rich  tabernacle  for 
the  domicile  of  the  interior  spirit.  Tradition  is  worthless,  as  infa- 
mous as  the  Koran  of  Mahommed,  and  yet  is  sufliciently  ortho- 
dox to  prove  the  Bible  to  be  the  word  of  God  !  This  is  what 
Shakspeare's  Sir  Nathaniel  would  name — "very  reverend  sport 
truly,  and  done  on  the  testimony  of  a  good  conscience !" 

In  our  last  letter.  Rev.  Preacher,  your  inconsistency  relatively 
to  the  authority  of  the  Fathers  was  noted.  You  demanded  "an 
editio  purgata,  a  genuine  copy,"  else  you  would  not  admit  them 
"as  the  expositors  of  truth."  The  genuine  copy  has  not  been  dis- 
covered, yet  you  seek  refuge,  under  their  authority, — you  admit 
them  as  expositors  of  truth!  Does  not  this  recurrence  to  the 
authority  of  the  Fathers  involve  you  in  a  contradiction?  You 
affirm  in  your  last  letter  that  it  does  not,  but  affirmation  is  not 
proof.  Mark  our  form  of  sound  words.  You  require  a  genuine 
copy  of  the  Father's  works,  ere  you  admit  them  "  as  expositors  of 
truth ;"  a  genuine  copy  is  not  had,  and  yet  you  admit  them  as  ex- 


231 

positorsof  truth,  for  you  cite  passages  from  llieir  works  as  they 
exist.  They  arc,  tlicrefore,  exi)ositors  of  truth,  and  they  are  ?iot 
expositors  of  truth.  Is  not  this  a  contradiction?  But  you  say  in 
the  true  spirit  of  your  "Protestant  lesson  and  logic,"  which,  when 
interpreted  without  the  aid  of  your  interior  spirit,  means  false 
and  reckless  assertion, — you  say,  "Providence  so  ordered  it,  that 
these  knavish  monks  who  corrupted  many  parts  of  them  (the  works 
of  the  Fathers)  did  not  succeed  in  corrupting  all  of  them ;  or  all 
TART  of  each  of  them"  !  ! 

Here,  gentle  and  logical  writer  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church,  a 
crabbed  question  must  be  asked.  Do  not  recoil  from  it.  By  what 
critical  canon  do  you  segregate  the  con  upted  from  the  genuine  pas- 
sages in  the  works  of  the  Fathers,  and  how  do  you  lop  off  the  "all 
PART  of  each  of  them,"  as  you  elegantly  phrase  it,  which  is  sound, 
from  the  all  part  of  each  of  them  which  is  unsound?  Solve  this 
query,  and  you  will  be  ranked  as  high  in  intellect  as  Hamlef, 
who  "knew  a  hawk  from  a  hand-saw  when  the  wind  was  south- 
erly." 

In  the  course  of  your  illogical  and  vituperative  letters,  you  have 
frequently  awakened  the  prejudices  and  darkest  passions  of  your 
Calvinistic  brethren,  by  a  false  and  slanderous  charge  against  your 
polemic  antagonists;  at  least,  if  their  prejudices  and  passions  have 
not  been  aroused  to  enmity,  you  are  not  innocent.  Far  as  mean 
and  dishonorable  insinuation,  far  as  base  and  false  accusation 
could  operate,  you  have  not  been  an  indolent  promulgator,  an 
inactive  exciter.  Over  the  good  and  discriminating  sense  of  the 
enlightened  portion  of  your  flock,  your  false  charges  have  not 
prevailed  ;  they  rest  on  the  same  level  with  our  proofs  of  the  Bible 
being  the  word  of  God.  You  call  us  Deists  and  Infidels !  We 
pity  the  degradation  and  malignancy  of  the  will  from  which  these 
terms  emanate;  w^e  sorrow  for  the  Minister  of  the  Calvinistic 
religion  who  could  utter  them.  In  your  last  letter,  and  alluding 
to  our  letter  No  7,  you  thus  write, — "you  have  renewed  your  cru- 
sade against  the  Holy  Bible."  This  ridiculous,  but  malicious  charge 
we  repel.  Our  crusade  is  not  directed  against  the  Bible,  it  is  di- 
rected against  your  Protesta?it  Rule  of  Faith.  Your  Protestant  Rule 
is  as  remote  from  being  the  cause  of  the  Bible,  as  the  interior  im- 
pulse directing  you  in  the  manufacture  of  your  ribald  epistles  is  re- 
mote from  the  impulse  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Let  it  be  observed  by 
your  "Christian  public,"  against  your  Rule  of  Faith,  not  against 
the  Sacred  Bible,  we  write;  it  would  be  blasphemy  to  confound 
them. 

"  Non  bene  convenint,  rec  in  una  sedc  morantur." 

Our  sincere  respect  is  evinced  for  the  Bible,  since,  by  our  creed,  we 
will  not  submit  it  to  the  indiscriminate  judgment  of  every  igno- 


232 

rant  and  fanatical  mind.  We  would  rescue  it  from  the  torture 
of  every  interested  and  designing  Pharisee.  Its  abuses  will,  at  a 
future  period  of  our  polemic  strife,  be  a  fruitful  theme  to  prove 
the  seraphic  influences,  social  advantages,  and  political  blessings, 
produced  by  your  religion.  They  will  illustrate  the  wisdom  of  the 
Catholic  Church ;  they  will  illustrate  the  motives  which  governed 
the  Apostles  of  your"erer  glorious  Reformation;  they  will  show 
how  the  sacred  volume  was  profaned  and  applied  by  them  to  the 
basest  purposes,  and,,how,  in  the  words  of  our  countryman  Moore, 

"They  wrested  from  its  page  sublime, 
Their  creed  of  lust,  and  hate,  and  crime.'* 

You,  in  truth,  are  he  who  insults  and  degrades  the  Sacred  Writ- 
ings by  your  eflxjrt  to  found  the  divinity  of  their  character,  on  an 
evidence — tradition— which  you  brand  with  the  same  infamy  as 
the  Koran  of  Mahommed.  But,  to  gull  the  ignorant  among  your 
flock,  you  aflfect  to  designate  us  Deists,  because  we  use  your  ex- 
pression "the  Hebrew  and  Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost !"  Why  should 
it  be  Deism  or  blasphemy  to  use  this  expression?  Is  it  because  the 
Scriptures  were  written  in  Hebrew  and  Greek?  Were  Hebrew 
and  Greek  applied  to  no  other  purposes  but  the  writing  of  the 
Bible  ?  Where  is  this  said  in  the  Scriptures  ?  Had  those  lan- 
guages been  employed  in  no  other  use  but  the  literary  composition 
of  the  Bible,  there  might  be  some  shadow  of  a  plea  for  your  mali- 
cious charge  of  Deism  :  but  since  Hebrew  was  the  common  and 
the  only  language  of  the  children  of  Abraham,  it  must  have  been, 
adopted  in  the  expression  of  every  idea,  gross  or  refined.  It  was 
spoken  by  the  Israelites  when  they  murmured  against  God  in  the 
desert,  equally  as  by  Moses  when  he  commanded  the  waters  of  the 
Red  Sea  to  whelm  the  Egyptian  host.  It  was  spoken  by  them 
when  they  adored  the  Golden  Calf;  it  was  their  language  while 
adoring  the  Almighty  when  he  gave  the  Decalogue  to  Moses  in 
the  midst  of  thunder  and  lightning  on  the  summit  of  Mount  Sinai. 
Is  Greek  the  language  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  Was  it  not  the  lan- 
guage of  Homer  and  Pindar,  of  Anacreon,  Sappho,  and  Aristo- 
phanes ?  If  your  English  version  of  the  Scriptures  be  correct,,  if 
faithful,  we  may,  with  the  same  right  that  you  monopolize  Hebrew 
and  Greek,  designate  English  the  language  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Would  not  this.  Rev.  Doctor,  be  a  farcical  assumption  of  right,  a 
ludicrous  plea  for  orthodox  monopoly?  It  is  hoped  the  members 
of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church  will  make  the.  proper  application  of 
these  remarks. 

We  solicit  them  also,  to  interrogate  their  Preacher,  Gentleman 
and  Writer,  why  he  never  solved  the  difliculty  bearing  on  his 
Protestant  Rule  of  Faith,  relatively  to  Luther's  rejection  of  the 
epistle  of  St.  James.     Preacher  Brownlee  and  the  Calvinists  ad- 


233 

mil  the  epistle  of  St.  James, — Luther  rejects  it.  Is  Luther  ric^ht  1 
Is  the  Preacher  in  error  (  Is  the  Preaclier  right?  Is  Luther  in 
error  ?  Does  your  Protestant  Rule  decide  this  (juestion,  Dr. 
Brownlee  ?  If  it  do,  fiivor  us  with  the  decision.  We  have  long 
looked  for  it.  We  recommend  the  ditHculty  to  the  Doctor's  flock 
at  their  next  class  meeting.  They,  possibly,  may  dicii  a  solution ; 
— it  is  hoped  it  will  not  be  assertiofi. 

Along  with  the  solution  of  the  preceding  difficulty,  we,  and 
vour  "  Christian  public,"  would  willingly  receive  answers  and  so- 
lutions to  the  many  difficulties  and  questions  })roposed  by  us  dur- 
ing the  present  controversy.  We  have  waited  in  patience  ;  and, 
in  truth,  it  may  be  affirmed,  that  one  of  our  arguments  against 
your  Rule  of  Faith  has  not  yet  been  answered.  We  have  proved 
that  the  Scriptures  cannot  establish  their  own  authenticity,  integ- 
rity, and  inspiration;  and  our  conclusion  is,  that,  since  you  admit 
these  characters  as  articles  of  faith,  and  admit  them  without  any 
Scriptural  authority,  the  Scriptures  are  not  your  o?ili/  Rule  of 
Faith.  Again  we  say,  since  all  Christians  are  obliged  to  believe 
the  canonicity  and  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  since 
the  canonicity  and  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  cannot  be  proved 
from  the  Scriptures,  the  divine  author  of  the  Christian  religion 
never  gave  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  man's  only  Rule  of  Faith. 
We  farther  assert,  that,  as  your  "only  Rule  of  Faith,  is  the  writ- 
ten Word  of  God,  contained  in  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New," 
and,  as  the  books  of  the  old  testament  or  of  the  new  cannot 
prove  their  own  authenticity  and  inspiration, — you  cannot,  con- 
sistently, believe  they  are  authentic  and  inspired.  H  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  this  has  already  been  remarked, — if  the  Scriptures  be 
your  only  Rule  of  Faith  then,  you  as  a  consistent  Christian,  can 
believe  no  article  of  faith,  that  cannot  be  proved  from  Scripture. 
But  the  authenticity  and  inspiration  of  the  Bible  cannot  be  proved 
from  Scripture  alo?ie,  therefore  the  authenticity  and  inspiration  of 
the  Bible,  cannot  be  articles  of  your  faith  !  ! !  The  "  Christian 
pubHc"  will  now  see  what  "  Protestant  lesson  and  logic"  have 
done  for  you,  and  will  condemn  the  temerity  that  thus  exposes  the 
creed  of  the  Christian  to  the  sneer  of  the  Deist,  who,  on  your 
principle  or  Rule  of  Faith,  can  hold  it  forth  as  a  mere  chimera 
resting  on  no  rational  motive  of  credibility  !  What!  the  creed 
of  the  Christian,  according  to  Preacher  Brownlee,  is  to  be  derived 
from  the  Scriptures  alone,  and  those  Scriptures  not  able  to  prove 
their  own  inspiration,  which  is  an  article  of  faith  every  Christian 
must  hold,  in  order  to  believe  the  religion  divine,  which  he  derives 
from  the  Scriptures.  If  this  be  not  absurdity  or  fatuity  in  its  last 
stage,  we  know  not  the  import  of  ideas. 

"  It  startles  the  philosopher,"  says  Dr.  Israeli,  in  the  retirement 
of  his  study,  when  he  discovers  how  writers  who,  we  may  pre- 
30 


2S4 

sume  are  searchers  after  truth,  should,  in  fact,  turn  out  to  be 
searchers  after  the  grossest  fictions.  It  proves  that  the  personal 
is  too  apt  to  predominate  over  the  Hterary  character."  Without 
making  any  invidious  apphcation  of  this  very  just  observation.,  we 
must  say,  that  either  Dr.  Brownlee  has  not  been  serious  w^hen  he 
proclaimed  his  extravagant  defence  of  his  Rule  of  Eaith,  or,  that 
his  credulity  is  most  extraordinary  where  his  prejudices  are  con- 
cerned. "  My  exposure  of  your  vulgate  Bible  has  taken  effect, 
and  you  cannot  conceal  how  much  you  v^rithe  under  it."  Really, 
Rev.  Sir,  your  attack  on  the  Vulgate,  instead  of  "  stinging  the 
priest's  conscience,"  tended  to  confirm  them  in  the  mean  opinion 
they  were  compelled  to  form  of  the  abilities  of  him  who  could 
confidently  tell  the  Christian  public  that  the  Bible  is  his  only  Rule 
of  Faith;  that  he  beheves  the  Bible  to  be  an  inspired  book,  and 
yet  cannot  prove  this  article  of  his  faith,  by  his  Rule  of  Faith. 

The  priests  care  but  little  for  your  approbation,  or  censure  of 
the  Latin  Vulgate.  Your  vituperation  is  of  no  consequence  when 
such  profound  scholars  as  Grotius,  Walton,  and  Mills  pronounce 
judgment ;  and  you  know  they  have  spoken  of  the  Vulgate  in 
terms  of  exalted  praise.  Tliough  we  were  to  admit  your  rash 
assertion,  that  the  Vulgate  is  the  worst  of  all  possible  translations, 
will  it  thence  follow,  that  the  Bible  alone  is  the  only  Rule  of  Faith 
and  judge  of  controversy  established  by  Christ  ?  We  call  for  "  an 
honest  answer"  to  this  question.  It  will  enable  the  Christian  pub- 
he  to  judge  of  your  "  Protestant  lesson  and  logic." 

Dr.  Brownlee  tells  the  virtuous  ladies  of  the  Middle  Dutch 
Church,  that  he  does  not  keep  their  consciences  in  his  pocket,  be- 
cause he  gives  them  the  Word  of  God,  as  it  is  written  in  the  books 
of  the  Old  Testament  and  of  the  New,  for  their  sole  and  full  Rule 
of  Faith.  Now,  we  ask  the  pious  ladies  of  the  Middle  Dutch 
Church,  if  their  writer  does  not  tell  them,  and  if  all  Christians  do 
not  acknowledge,  that  all  copies  and  translations  of  Scripture  are 
only  so  far  God's  true  word  as  they  agree  with  the  true  original  copy 
written  by  the  sacred  penman?  But  most  pious  and  virtuous  ladies, 
your  writer  tells  you,  that  the  original  languages  of  the  Scriptures 
were,  "  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  You  then 
must  know  Hebrew  and  Greek  in  order  to  judge  of  your  English 
translations.  You  must  be  deeply  versed  in  those  languages,  in 
order  to  know  that  the  version  you  use  is  truly  rendered  from  the 
original.  Is  this  the  fact  ?  Have  you  studied  Hebrew  and  Greek  ? 
We  have  our  serious  doubts  on  this  subject,  and,  in  expressing 
these  doubts,  we  disclaim  everything  like  insult  or  disrespect:  all 
we  mean  to  prove  is,  Preacher  Brownlee  has  your  consciences  in 
his  pocket ;  and  we  respectfully  suggest,  would  it  not  be  more 
prudent  to  entrust  your  consciences  to  the  keeping  of  Christ's  holy 
spouse,  the  "pillar  and  the  ground  of  truth,"  than  to  confide  them 


S35 

to  any  man's  pocket  ?     Preacher  Brownlec  (ells  you  to  believe 
the  Word  of  God  alone,  your  English  Bible,  and  this  English 
Bible  cannot  tell  you  it  is  a  correct  translation  from  the  "  Hebrew 
and  Greek  of  the  Holy  Gliost."     Of  this  you  yourselves  cannot 
possibly  form  an  opinion,  for  you  are  utterly  ignorant  of  Hebrew 
and  of  Greek.     How  then  do  you  know  that  it  is  the  Word  of 
God  ?     We   will  suc^gest  an  answer.     You  know  your  English 
Bible  is  the  Word  of  God,  on  the  authority  of  Preacher  Brownlee, 
or  some  such  person,  as  ignorant  of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  as 
you  are  yourseh^es;  and  thus  they  put  your  consciences  in  their 
pockets  and  deride  your  credulity  ! ! !     Will  Dr.  Brownlee  pjrove 
to  us  by  his  rule  of  Faith,  that  the  copy  from  which  the  English 
Bible   has  been  translated   accorded  with    the  original?      The 
Doctor,  it  is  presumed,  believes  this.     We  call  on   him  to  prove 
this  point  of  his  belief  by  his  Rule  of  Faith.     We  beseech  him  not 
to  omit  an  answer  to  this — "  it  deeply  afiects  his  cause."  Is  Doctor 
Brownlee  certain,  that  the  translators  of  his  English  Bible  did  not 
take  liberties  with  the  text  in  order  to  favor  their  own  peculiar 
opinions  ?     Is  the  learned  Doctor  ijifallihly  certain  that  the  per- 
sons who  undertook  the  translation  of  his   "  blessed  Scriptures" 
the  English  Bible,  were  fully  equal  to  do  so  arduous  and  impor- 
tant an  undertaking  ?     His  Rule  of  Faith  must  give  him  satisfac- 
tory information  on  these  points,  or  it  cannot  be  relied  on.    Now, 
where,  or  in  what  chapter  or  verse,  does  the  English  Bible  tell 
preacher  Brownlee's  hearers,  that  its  translators  took  no  liberties 
with  the  copies  from  which  they  translated?     In  what  chapter  or 
verse  does  it  inform  them,  that*  the  persons  who  undertook  that 
translation,  were  capable  of  executing  their  task  with   fidelity, 
honesty,  and  accuracy  ?     They  find  no  such  chapter  or  verse  in 
the  Bible,  nor,  are  they  capable  of  making  the  necessary  investi- 
gation so  as  to  be  certain  of  the  true  rendering  o(  their   Bible; 
therefore,  their  Rule  of  Faith  must  be,  as  regards  them,  utterly 
uncertain,  for  they  rely  on  the  authority  of  a  translator  or  trans- 
lators, of  whose  orthodoxy,  fidelity,  and  capability,  they  are  not 
able  to  judge.     Hence,  it  is  impossible   for  Doctor   Brownlee's 
virtuous  ladies  and  Christian  public"  to  have  a  rational,  much  less, 
a  divine  faith. 

That  the  well  meaning  Protestants  may  be  warned  not  to  place 
too  great  a  reliance  on  the  various  translations  of  holy  writ  by 
the  Reformers,  we  will  briefly  show  them,  that  those  Apostles  of 
truth,  have  laid  sacrilegious  hands  on  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and 
have  converted  the  bread  of  life  into  the  poison  of  death.  We 
shall  begin  with  Luther's  translation.  Of  this  translation  Zuing- 
lius  writes  as  follows:  Lib.  de  Sacra,  "Luther,"  says  he,  "  was 
a  foul  corrupter,  and  horrible  falsifier  of  God's  word.  One  who 
followed  the  Marcionists  and  Arians  that  rased  out  such  places 


23G 

of  Holy  Writ  as  were  against  him.  Thou  dost  corrupt  the  Word 
of  God,  O  I.uther,  thou  art  seen  to  be  a  manifest  and  common 
corrupter  of  the  Holy  Scriptures ;  how  much  are  we  ashamed 
of  thee,  who  have  hitherto  esteemed  thee."  After  Luther  comes 
Zuinglius  himself:  he  and  his  disciples  translated  the  Bible,  which 
was  printed  at  Zurich.  A  copy  was  sent  to  Luther,  which  he  re- 
jected with  disdain,  and  called  those  ZuingKan  translations, "  Fools, 
A^ses,  anti-Christ,  Deceivers,  and  of  an  Ass-like  understanding.'' 
See  Protestant  Apol.  Tract.  L  s.  10.        ^ 

CEcolampodius  gave  a  translation,  which  was  printed  at  Basil. 
Of  this  Beza  says,  "  that  the  Basilian  translation  is  in  many  pla- 
ces wicked,  and  altogether  differing  from  the  mind  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Beza  also  says,  that  the  translation  by  Castalio  is  "  sacri- 
LEoious,  WICKED  AND  PAGAN."  Castalio  iu  his  turn,  censured  Beza's 
own  translation.  He  wrote  a  book  against  it,  and  says,  "  to  note 
all  Beza's  errors  in  translating  would  require  a  large  volume." 

We  shall  now  glance  at  your  English  Bible.     The  first  English 
translation  was  given  by  Tindal  in  the  reign  of  Henry  the  Eighth.  In 
this  translation,  and  in  the  New  Testament  alone,  Bishop  Tunstal 
discovered  no  less  than  ^Hwo  thousand  corruptions.''^  Two  thousand 
corruptions  in  the  New  Testament  alone  !     A  pretty  Rule  of  Faith ! 
In  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth  many  ministers  wrote  to  her  as 
follows; — "Our  translation  of  the  Psalms,  as  formed  in  our  book 
of  common  prayer,  differs  from  the  Hebrew  in  two  hundred  places 
at  least."     And   Carlisle  in  his  book  of  Christ's  decent  into  Hell, 
says,  "  that  the  translators  of  the  Enghsh  Bible  have   depraved 
the  sense  and  deceived  the  ignorant.     In  many  places  they  wrest 
the  Scriptures  from  the  right  sense,  and  show  themselves  to  love 
darkness   more  than  light,  falsehood  more  than  truth."     In  the 
reign  of  King  James,  it  was  resolved,  at  the  Conference  of  Hamp- 
ton Court,  that  a  new  translation  should  be  given,  on  account  of 
the  manifold  and  daring  corruptions  of  the  preceding  ones.     Now, 
the  preceding  translations  -were  the  Protestant  Rule  of  Faith,  and 
this  Rule  of  Faith,  was  discovered  at  the  Hampton  Court  Confer- 
ence, and  even  before  it,  not  to  be  the  Word  of  God.     Now,  if  the 
Reformers  on  the  Continent  of  Europe  and  in  Great  Britain,  could 
have  thus  remorselessly   polluted  the   pure  fountain  of  eternal 
truth,  and  caused  the  people  to  drink  of  this  poisoned  source,  how 
is  it  possible  for  thinking  Protestants  to  repose  with  security  on 
the  translations  given  them  by  their  ministers  ?     The  first  transla- 
tions were  made  with  a  view  to  justify  by  Holy  Writ,  the  separa- 
tion from  the  Mother  Church,  by  disproving  her  doctrines.     The 
same  rancorous  hostility  to  her  still  exists.  We  cannot,  therefore, 
hope  to  find  the  pure  Scripture,  or  the  Word  of  God,  in  those 
places,  which  have  a  bearing  on,  or  a  reference  to^  the  new  fan- 
gled  doctrines.     To  be  candid,  we  would  as  soon,  and  with  as 


237 

much  confidence  receive  a  translation  from  the  hands  of  Julian, 
the  apostate,  as  receive  one  from  any  of  the  Protestant  Societies, 
especially  as  regards  the  controverted  passages.  The  fact  is  before 
us,  and  to  this  fact  we  call  the  attention  of  all  Protestants.  The 
first  Protestant  translators  have  impiously  corrupted  the  sacred 
records,  and,  though  many  of  their  corruptions,  have  been  cor- 
rected, many,  as  yet,  remain  uncorrected  in  obedience  to  the 
malignant  feeling  that  first  introduced  them.  Now,  Rev.  Sir,  if 
the  Bible  be  the  only  Rule  of  Faith,  let  it  tell  us,  which  of  the 
translators  of  the  Word  of  God  is  the  true  one.  In  order  to  decide 
this  question,  you  and  your  old  and  ^^  virtuous  ladies,"  will  have  to 
take  satchels  and  trudge  to  school,  in  order  to  learn  the  "  Hebrew 
and  Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Thus,  and  only  thus,  can  you 
and  they,  "  by  the  grace  of  God,"  ascertain  and  detect  the  crime 
of  those  impostors,  who  have  given  you,  in  the  shape  of  an  Enghsh 
translation,  what  is  ?wt  the  Bible.  The  ladies  of  the  Middle  Dutch 
Church  may  be  told  that  their  English  Bible  is  the  true  Word  of 
God.  But  this  they  cannot  believe  unless  the  Bible  tells  them  so, 
for  the  Bible  is  their  only  Rule  of  Faith.  To  your  high  toned 
demand,  "  tell  us  if  there  be  one  English  version  of  the  Bible  au- 
thorized by  either  the  Pope  or  the  Church,"  we  return  the  very 
brief  answer — Transeat.  If  you  know  the  meaning  of  this  term, 
you  know  what  use  to  make  of  it. 

You,  Rev.  Sir,  have  profited  by  the  advice  of  the  "  venerable 
member  of  the  bar,"  to  the  young  lawyer.  "  Whenever  your  op- 
ponent advances  an  argument,  which  you  cannot  answer — take 
special  care  not  to  touch  it."  We  have  advanced  the  most  posi- 
tive and  convincing  arguments  to  prove  to  you,  that  the  Saviour 
of  the  world  did  not  establish  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  our  only 
Rule  of  Faith,  and  these  arguments  you  have  not  touched,  you 
have  not  even  as  much  as  "  squinted''''  at  them.  You  fear  to  grap- 
ple with  them.  You  have  groped  your  way  through  eight  long 
and  ill  digested  letters,  which,  instead  of  proving  your  point  in 
any  one  sense,  only  convince  the  public,  that  you  are  prepared  to 
hazard  the  grossest  absurdity,  when  it  leans  towards  your  preju- 
dice. Permit  us  to  call  to  your  recollection,  that  you  have  under- 
taken to  prove,  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  alone  are  the  only  Rule 
of  Faith,  and  only  judge  of  controversy  established  by  Christ. 
You  have,  to  use  your  own  term,  "  squinted"  at  the  first ;  you  have 
made  an  effort  to  prove  that  Christ  established  the  Scriptures  as 
the  Christian's  only  Rule  of  Faith,  but  not  a  word  have  you  said, 
to  prove  that  the  Scriptures  have  been  given  to  us  as  our  only 
JUDGE  OF  controversy.  Why  have  you  abandoned  this  part  of 
your  ground  1  Have  your  "  Protestant  lesson  and  logic"  made 
no  distinction  between  the  rule  and  the  judge  who  decides  accor- 
ding to  the  rule  ?    We  strongly  suspect  that  the  advice  of  the 


^'  venerable  member^of  the  bar"  has  suggested  to  you  the  following 
wise  rule,  "  When  you  advance  a  proposition  which  you  cannot 
prove,  take  special  care  not  to  attempt  the  proof  where  you  can 
avoid  it."  "  Now,  Rev.  Sir,  we  have  many  arguments  to  prove 
that  the  Scriptures  were  not  established  by  Christ  as  the  Judge  of 
all  Controversies  in  religion  between  Christians.  Our  first  argu- 
ment is  taken  from  the  nature  of  the  judicial  office.  The  Judge 
between  two  individuals  at  variance,  is  bound  to  express  himself 
in  such  a  manner  as  that  both  parties  shall  see  what  his  sentence 
is.  One  party  must  see  that  it  is  for  him,  the  other  must  see  that 
it  is  against  him.  But  the  Scriptures  do  not  decide  in  this  way. 
Therefore,  the  Scriptures  are  not  the  Judge  of  Controversies. 
The  major  proposition  is  evident.  The  minor  we  prove.  Have 
not  many  points  of  belief  been  controverted  for  many  years  be- 
tween the  Lutherans  and  the  Calvinists  1  Have  not  both  parties 
appealed  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  have  the  Holy  Scriptures 
pronounced  sentence  in  the  manner  common  sense  tells  us  they 
ought'?  Have  they,  for  instance,  in  the  controversy  concerning 
the  real  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  decided  in  such  a 
way,  as  to  tell  the  Lutherans  that  Christ  is  ic edAYy  present  in  the 
Eucharist,  or  to  tell  the  Calvinists  that  he  is  really  absent  1  They 
have  not.  Rev.  Sir.  If  they  had,  it  is  to  be  presumed  the  contro- 
versy would  not  still  exist.  That  our  readers  may  see  the  full 
force  of  this  argument,  we  beg  of  them  to  notice  two  things. 

First,  the  Lutherans  and  Calvinists  openly  confess  that  they 
acknowledge  no  other  Judge  of  controversies  than  the  sacred 
Scriptures,  which  they  say  are  plain  and  manifest,  and  evident, 
and  fully  sufficient  of  themselves  to  decide  all  controversies  in 
matters  of  faith  and  religion. 

Secondly.  Though  they  have  this  judge,  and  though  they  have 
appealed  to  this  judge,  their  controversies  have  not  ended. 

Now,  we  say,  that  one  of  two  things  must  be  admitted,  either 
the  Scriptures  have  no  tniTHERTo  pronounced  sentence,  clearly, 
evidently,  and  sufficiently,  or,  if  they  have,  that  either  the  Lu- 
therans or  the  Calvinists  are  very  stubborn  or  obstinate,  for  not 
having  obeyed  the  sentence  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Dr.  Brownlee 
may  take  his  choice.  *  *  *  *  This,  Rev.  Sir,  is  our  first  argu- 
ment against  your  Judge  of  Controversy,  we  have  five  or  six 
more  which  shall  be  given  in  regular  order.  Our  second  argu- 
ment will  be  deduced  from  the  Scriptures  themselves.  This  we 
shall  not  enter  upon  at  present,  as  it  would  require  more  space, 
than  we  wish  to  claim,  or  have  a  right  to,  in  the  Truth  Teller. 
Your  letter  No.  8  is,  to  express  it  gravely,  a  rare  production.  It 
verifies  the  saying  of  the  old  philosopher,  that  an  ass  can  propose 
more  questions  in  a  minute  than  a  wise  man  could  solve  in  a  year. 
You  have  glanced  at  many  subjects  entirely  foreign  to  the  point 


239 

at  issue.  You  cannot  expect  us  to  follow  you.  We  told  you  that 
we  are  of  the  Old  School,  and  that  our  "  lesson  and  logic"  will 
not  allow  us  to  stray  from  the  matter  in  dispute.  Now,  Sir,  the 
subject  ^t  present  under  consideration  is  too  important  to  be  only 
**  squinted"  at.  If  we  prove,  that  your  Rule  of  Faith  and  Judge  of 
Controversy  have  never  been  established  by  the  divide  author  of 
the  Christian  Religion,  then  it  will  follow  that  you  have  been 
practicing  a  most  awful  delusion;  that  you  have  been  leading  the 
people  astray  from  the  path  of  truth,  and  that  you  are  in  open  re- 
bellion against  the  order  established  by  heaven. 

We  have  been  too  often  under  the  very  painful  necessity  of  ex- 
posing your  gross  ignorance  both  of  theology  and  of  Ecclesiastical 
history;  as  for  your  logic,  all  who  read  your  productions  say  it  is 
puerile  in  the  extreme.  Your  ignorance  as  a  divine  and  historian, 
will  be  seen  in  the  following,  we  may  say  Gothic  passage.  *'  In 
face  of  the  Holy  Bible,  in  which  the  Holy  Ghost  commands  us 
not  to  pray  to,  or  worship  creatures,  in  the  face  of  the  testimony 
of  councils  by  the  sainted  fathers,  you  thus  pray,  O  Holy  Mary ! 
obtain  for  us  by  thy  intercession,  light  to  know  the  great  benefits 
which  Christ  has  bestowed  on  us.  "  O  most  pure  mother  of  God." 
Paganism  never  breathed  such  Atheism.  "  God  has  no  mother," 
says  the  Preacher.  "  What  a  brutalising  prayer  this  is  to  teach 
men  !"  We  give  this  passage  in  order  to  let  your  pious  ladies 
and  Middle  Dutch  Church  congregation  see,  that  their  preacher 
and  pastor  is  a  Nestorian  heretic.  The  hereiarch  Nestorius  denied 
that  the  Blessed  Virgin  was  the  mother  of  God.  He  maintained 
that  there  were  two  persons  in  Christ,  that  of  God,  and  that  of 
man — he  denied  the  Incarnation,  or  that  God  was  made  man,  and 
said,  the  Blessed  Virgin  ought  not  to  be  styled  the  mother  of  god, 
BUT  only  of  the  MAN,  wlio  was  Christ,  For  these  errors,  Nesto- 
rius WAS  CONDEMNED  by  thc  third  General  Council  held  at  Ephesus 
in  the  year  431,  and  at  which  two  hundred  Bishops  assisted.  The 
Catholic  doctrine  is,  that  in  Jesus  Christ  there  are  two  natures, 
the  divine  and  human  ;  but  only  one  person.  That  Christ's  human 
nature  does  not  subsist  by  itself  but  by  the  person  of  the  word  to 
which  it  is  substantially  united.  If  this  were  not  true,  it  would 
not  be  true  to  say,  the  word  was  made  flesh,  died,  and  Redeem- 
ed us  with  his  blood.  Truly  Preacher  Brownlce's  Rule  must  be 
extremely  fallacious  when  it  thus  brings  him  into  the  company  of 
Nestorius,  and  under  the  anathema  of  the  primitive  church  !  The 
Rev.  Preacher  will  pardon  us  for  the  lesson  we  are  about  to  give 
him  on  this  point.  It  is  the  same  which  all  our  children  are  taught, 
in  order  to  guard  them  against  the' awful  blasphemy  of  the  East- 
ern arch  heretic. 

Q.  Why  do  you  pray  with  such  devotion  to  the  Virgin  Mary? 

A.  Because  she  is  the  Mother  of  Jesus  our  Redeemer. 

Q.  Why  do  you  give  her  such  extraordinary  honor  ? 


240 

A.  Because  she  is  the  Mother  of  God. 

Q.  For  what  other  reason  do  you  honor  her. 

A.  She  was  honored  by  God,  by  men,  and  by  angels. 

Q.  How  w^as  she  honored  by  God? 

A.  When  he  made  choice  of  her,  to  be  Mother  of  his  son. 

Q.  How  was  she  honored  by  Angels  7 

A.  When  Gabriel  the  Archangel  saluted  her  with  "  hail  mary 
full  of  Grace."  Luke,  1.  28. 

Q.  How  W' as  she  honored  by  men  ? 

A.  She  was  honored  by  St.  Elizabeth  saying,  "  Blessed  art  thou 
among  women,  and  blessed  is  the  fruit  of  thy  womb.  (Luke  1,  42.) 
and,  until  '-the  dregs  of  our  times,"  she  has  been  honored  fey  "all 
generations." 

Q.  Why  does  the  Church  call  her  the  Mother  of  God  ? 

A.  Because  she  is  the  Mother  of  Christ,  true  God,  and  true 
man,  and  truly  born  of  her.  Yet  when  we  call  her  Mother  of 
God,  we  do  not  say  that  she  is  the  Mother  of  the  Divinity,  but  of 

the  WORD  MADE    FLESH  GOD    AND  MAN  IN  THE    SAME  PERSON.       This  is 

what  Preacher  Brownlee  calls,  "  revolting  blasphemy !"  Pity  this 
APT  and  inspired  pupil  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  did  not  live  in  the  year 
43 L  The  Fathers  of  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  under  his  guidance, 
would  never  have  defined  that  the  Virgin  Mary  is  the  Mother  of 
God,  and  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  would  not  have  written  his  Ana- 
thematism. 

We  suspect  that  the  Rev.  Preacher,  is  a  member  of  the  board  of 
missions.  If  so,  his  Nestorianism  will  be  of  service  to  those  who 
are  sent  to  Persia.  It  is  a  fact,  that  since  the  conquest  of  the 
Persian  Monarchy  by  the  Mahometans  in  the  7th  century,  the 
Nestorians  were  better  treated  than  the  Catholics,  for  the  Nesto- 
rians  spoke  of  Jesus  Christ  in  the  same  way  that  the  Alcoran  does 
of  Mahomet.  Assemani  Biblioth  Orient.  T.  34.  *  *  *  * 
When  we  are  told  that  the  Lutherans  have  resuscitated  damned 
heresies  out  of  hell  "  See  Smidelin  Epist.  Col.  Montisbel  Anno. 
1358; — and  w^hen  Stancarus  in  lib.  de  Trint.  Crac.  1562,  says, 
that  "  the  Calvimsts  allow  for  their  CathoHc  faith,  the  heresies  of 
the  Arians,  Entrictarians,  Appollonarists  Timotheans,  Acephahsts, 
Theodosians,  and  Macarines;"  and  when  the  Doctor's  "honest 
John  Wesley"  writes  in  the  minutes  ol  Conver-sations  between  the 
Rev.  Messrs.  John  and  Charles  Wesley,  6z:c.  June  25th,  1771, 
that,  "  when  satan  could  no  othcTiwise  hinder  this,  (the  raising  up 
of  a  holy  people,)  he  threw  calvinism  in  thtir  way  ;"  and  when 
we  ourselves  see  Preacher  Bwvnlee  renewing  the  blasphemies  of 
Nestorius,  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  we  shudder,  and 
turn  with  affectionate  reverence,  to  that  Holy  Mother,  who  has 
never  sported  with  divine  truth,  and  who  stands  like  an  Appenine, 
firm,  and  sublime  in  the  light  of  Heaven. 

We  are.  Yours,  &c  JOHN   POWER. 

May  2Sth,  1833.  THOMAS  C.  LEVINS. 


!241 

Hr.  Brownlce^s  JLetter,  .^Vi,  9. 
To  DRS.   POWER,   VARELA,   &   LEVINS. 

"There  is  nwhingbut  roguery  in  villainous  men.''— Shakspeare. 

Gentlemen: — Your  last  letter  clearly  reveals  what  the  religious 
public  had  long  suspected, — and  what  you  have  been  all  along, 
anxious  to  conceal:  namely,  the  deep  conviction  en  the  part  of 
the  Romish  Priests,  that  the  peculiar  dogmas  and  ceremonies  of 
their  Church,  cannot  sustain  the  bold  inspection  of  the  American 
community.  And  hence  every  thing  is  to  be  hazarded, — every 
thing,  even  truth  itself  sacrificed,  to  prevent  your  antagonist  from 
going  forward  into  "the  Chambers  of  imagery"  of  Holy  Mother ! 
I  did  conjecture,  gentlemen,  that  you  would  not  dare  to  follow 
me  in  the  fnvestigation  of  your  christiano-pagan  system  of  Popery. 
But,  now%  in  your  last  letter,  you  have  settled  the  question.  You 
will  not  follow  me;  you  will  not  leave  the  Rule  ;  it  is  more  easy 
to  retail  the  scandal  of  infidels  and  Priests  against  God's  holy 
word,  than  to  enter  into  the  arena  and  defend  the  new  edition  of 
Roman  paganism !  You  have  not  the  moral  courage  to  standby 
and  assist  at  the  stripping  of  the  apocalyptic  ^'jMotfier  of  Harlots.^^ 
You  dare  not  stand  forward  and  defend  her  nameless  abomina- 
tions, before  the  enlightened  American  public  !  For  me, — I  mean 
to  go  forward:  five  hundred  thousand  American  Christians  have 
condescended  to  cheer  me  on.  And  ''so  may  God  do  to  me  and 
more  also,"  if,  by  the  grace  of  God,  I  do  not  tear  that  veil  oflf  from 
her  haggard  face;  and  show  her  abominations  to  the  whole  house 
of  God  in  this  land! 

In  yoiu'  last  letter,  you  have  played  off  wdth  increasing  malig- 
nity, and  more  fullness  of  purpose,  than  usual,  your  infidel  opposi- 
tion to  the  holy  Word  of  God.  You  repeat,  as  if  new,  that  which 
you  know  to  be  refuted  logically,  again  and  again.  You  repeat, 
for  the  twelfth  time,  your  malignant  opposition  to  the  Word  of 
the  Most  High,  which  is  the  Protestant's  ojily  Rule  of  Faith.  You 
repeat  that  the  Bible  is  not  the  Rule,  and  the  Spirit  of  God  is  not 
the  Judge,  because  the  Bible  and  the  Spirit  cannot  prove  them- 
selves! And  this  you  assert  in  the  face  of  the  full  and  manifest 
evidence  to  the  contrary  which  we  set  before  you  :  from  external 
evidence,  which  establishes  the  authenticity  and  genuineness  of  the 
Bible;  and  from  internal  evidence,  namely,  their  divine  sublimity, 
divine  purity,  divine  harmony,  and  divine  powder  and  efficacy  in 
convincing  and  converting  sinners  : — all  which  proves  its  divine 
origin.  Those  who  disbelieve  this  Holy  word  of  God  are  worse 
than  the  devils.  For,  saith  St.  James,  ''the  devils  also  believe  and 
tremble:'  James  ii.  19.  It  is  a  fearful  distinction  to  be  worse  than 
the  worst  of  spiritual  beings! ! 
No.  16—31 


242 

There  is  nothing  in  all  your  renewed  crusade  against  God^s 
Word  which  requires  me  to  pause  to  refute.  Your  last  idea  has 
long  ago  been  exhausted !  The  virulence  and  vituperation  only, 
are  put  forth  with  new  force.  As  if  determined  that  nothing  shall, 
on  your  part,  be  wanting  to  consummate  the  evidence  set  before 
the  public,  in  proof  of  your  unblushing  Deism,  you  are  zealously 
filling  it  up,  even  to  overflowing!  And  you  seem  now  even  to 
glory  in  wearing  the  name  stampt  and  branded  on  your  fore- 
head, as  the  representatives  of  Popery, — "xms  is  the  father  and 
PRINCE  OF  DEISM !"  It  is  truc,  you  affect,  sincerely  to  believe  in  the 
Scriptures,  even  while  you  assail  them  fiercely.  I  do  not  doubt 
it:  this  is  intended  merely  for  effect.  Can  you,  or  any  one  be  so 
ignorant  as  not  to  know  that  even  David  Hume  always  spoke 
respectfully  of — to  use  his  own  words — ''Our  Holy  Religion,''  even 
while  uttering  his  bitter  hostility  to  it?  And  even  Lord  Herbert, 
the  father  of  "the  English  Deists,"  and  also  Lord  Bolingbroke 
always  professed  as  sincerely  as  you,  to  reverence  the  Scriptures! 
Herbert  even  received  a  revelation  from  heaven  to  pubHsh  his 
book  against  divine  Revelation!  Great  enemies  of  God's  cause 
have  always  been  greatly  inconsistent ! 

If  you,  gentlemen,  choose  to  continue  your  Deistical  career, 
I  shall  beg  leave,  through  you,  to  say  to  the  public,  that  they  will 
find  all  that  the  Roman  Priests  say,  already  printed  in  Mumford 
and  Milner:  and  on  the  other  side,  they  can  find  a  full  refutation 
of  every  one  of  their  Hume  and  Voltaire  objections  in  Home's 
Introduction  to  the  New  Testament.  He  has  refuted  every  single 
objection  that  Deism  has  hitherto  conceived ;  and  the  intellect  of 
our  Priests,  which  hates  to  leave  the  beaten  path  of  old  ''Mumford 
and  Milner,'''  is  not  keen  enough  to  devise  any  thing  new  against 
the  Holy  Scriptures ! 

Your  defence  of  atrocious  blasphemy,  of  calHng  "Mary  the 
Mother  of  God,"  is  unique.  Mother  of  the  infinite  God!  dust  and 
ashes,  Mother  of  the  eternal  and  almighty  God!  Siji?iite  woman 
Mother  of  the  infinite  Deity!  According  to  this,  then,  when  God 
was  born  1800  years  ago, then  there  was  no  God  before  that!  This 
is  a  phrase  which — I  speak  it  gravely — none  but  the  Devil,  the 
great  enemy  of  God,  could  ever  have  invented! 

Besides,  do  you  not  see  that  you  confound  the  two  natures  in  the 
one  person  of  Christ?  If  God  was  born  of  Mary,  then  is  the  Deity 
a  human  nature;  and  the  human  nature  of  Christ  is  nothing  else 
than  the  essence  of  the  Deity !  You  know  what  monstrous  heresy 
this  was !  But  this  shall  come  in  my  way,  when  I  reach  the 
Idolatry  of  the  Romish  Church. 

I  now  go  on.     In  my  last  Letter,  I  showed  that  Catholicity  is 

YOUNGER  THAN  CHRISTIANITY;  AND  THAT  PoPERY  IS  A  NOVELTY  IN  THE 

Christian  world.    The  evidence  I  adduced,  rests  on  historical 


243 

documents,  which  furnish  us  the  dates  of  your  pecuhar  doctrinesf 
and  rites,  beyond  Roman  gain-saying.  We  have,  by  these  his- 
torical documents,  and  quotations  from  the  Fathers,  fixed  the 
birth-day  of  the  existence  of  ten  of  the  Roman  CathoHc  peculi- 
arities. And  we  call  on  the  Priests,  in  the  face  of  the  American 
community,  to  point  out  one  single  error  in  these  dates;  and  re- 
fute, if  they  can,  the  quotations  of  the  fathers,  which  we  have 
given.  Let  them  follow  us,  if  they  have  courage  to  defend  their 
sinking  cause  ;  and  no  longer  make  themselves  ridiculous  in  lin- 
gering on  the  Rule, — after  we  have  exhausted  the  defence  of  the 
true  and  only  Rule  : — and  reduce  to  ruins  their  Roman  rule,  by 
ten  arguments  which  they  have  not,  to  this  hour  ventured  to  touch. 

I  now  go  on  to  show  some  few  of  the  fatal  results  of  the  Roman 
Catholics"'  apostatizing  from  the  only  Rule  of  Faith  ;  and  the  only 
Judge  of  Controversy.  And  the  point  which  I  have  selected  for 
discussion  in  this  Letter,  is  this : — The  peculiar  doctrines,  rites, 
and  monkish  institutions  of  Romanism,  were  originated  m  sheer 
FANATICISM,  AND  SUSTAINED  BY  IMPOSTURE.  My  sclections  of  Speci- 
mens and  evidence,  shall  be  rather  miscellaneous  in  this  Letter. 

1st.  Notwithstanding  the  command  of  the  Deity  to  take  good 
heed  and  make  no  manner  of  similitude, "  for  he  saw,"  says  the 
Almighty,  "  no  similitude  in  the  day  that  the  Lord  spake  unto 
3^ou  in  Horeb,"  the  Roman  Church  declares  in  her  Catechism,  p. 
360,  that  "to  represent  the  persons  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  by  certain 
forms,  under  which,  as  we  read  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments, 
they  designed  to  appear,  is  not  to  be  deemed  contrary  to  religion, 
or  the  law  of  God."  Hence,  in  the  engravings  found  in  sonie 
editions  of  the  Breviary,  and  in  pictures  on  the  stained  glass  in 
Cathedrals,  God  the  father  is  figured  out  as  an  old  venerable  maw; 
on  his  right  stands  Christ,  as  a  pretty  young  man;  above  is  the 
Holy  Ghost  in  the  shape  of  a  dove !  Near  by,  stands  "  the  Mother 
of  God !" 

2.  In  the  distribution  of  work  and  offices  assigned  to  the  vast 
host  of  saints,  much  fanaticism  is  displayed.  They  have  at  least 
two  St.  Anthonies.  He  of  Padua  delivers  his  votaries  from  wa- 
ter:—He  who  is  surnamed  the  Abbot,  delivers  from  fire !  St. 
Nicholas  is  invoked  by  young  persons  who  wished  to  be  married. 
St.  Rumon  protects  good  ladies  who  are  "in  that  condition  in 
which  all  wish  to  be  who  love  their  lords."  And  the  saint  Lazaro 
assists  them  in  labour  !  Si.  Domingo  cures  fevers  :  St.  Apollonia 
takes  care  of  the  teeth ;  and  she  must  be  invoked  with  prayer 
and  incense,  by  those  who  have  tooth-ache!  Then  St.  Lucia 
heals  all  diseases  of  the  eyes ;  St.  Petronilla  cures  the  ague;  St. 
Liberius  the  stone  :  and  St.  Blass  all  the  diseases  of  the  throat! 
St.  Barbara  is  invoked  as  the  refuge  in  war,  and  in  thunder  storms: 
and  St.  Roque  shields  the  humble  faithful  against  the  plague.  Each 


244 

kingdom  of  Europe  has  its  own  Saint ;  other  Saints  are  more 
menial : — One  Saint  presides  over  hogs ;  another  over  geese ! 
See  Cramp,  p.  332 ;  and  Townsend's  Trav.  in  Spain,  p.  215 
vol.  iii. 

3d.  In  the  canonizing  of  Saints,  and  thence  adding  to  the  ob- 
jects of  divine  worship,  and  veneration,  we  perceive  a  fruitful  dis- 
play of  fanaticism.  This,  like  the  usual  peculiarities  of  Catholic 
Rome,  is  borrowed  from  Pagan  Rome.  The  Pagan  Priests  to 
sustain  their  credit,  now  and  then  proclaimed  that  certain  great 
characters,  great  in  war,  vice,  and  sensuaUty,  had  been  honored 
in  heaven  and  placed  among  the  gods ;  and  the  pagan  canoniza- 
tion took  place  accordingly.  Even  the  modest  and  virtuous  Vir- 
gil deified  Augustus ;  and  gravely  asked  him,  while  yet  ahve,  in 
what  part  of  heaven,  he  chose  after  death,  to  shine  !  The  case 
of  King  Romulus  is  an  apt  illustration  of  modern  Roman  canon- 
ization. There  must  be  a  miracle,  or  a  vision  at  least.  Well, 
Proculus  appeared  before  the  Roman  Senate,  and  declared  that 
Romulus  had  revealed  himself  to  him,  in  a  vision,  and  told  him  that 
he  was  received  up  among  the  gods  !  See  Plutarch,  Vit.  Rom. 
Halicar,  Lib.  2.  p.  124.^ 

In  modern  Rome,  miracles  are  required  in  evidence  of  Saint- 
ship  ;  and  there  is  actually  an  office  m  Rome,  where  the  congrega- 
tion of  Rites  sit;  and  receive  the  accounts  of  new  miracles,  judge, 
and  decide  daily.  Even  the  Goliath  Dr.  Milner,  in  Letter  24,  p. 
92,  gives  us  some  precious  morsels  on  this.  On  these  miracles 
being  established,  a  new  Saint,  and  object  of  worship,  is  set  up  be- 
fore the  simple  faithful.  'Almost  every  Pope  has  added  some.  Ben- 
edict VII.  added  eight  in  one  summer.  Clement  XII.  four  more ; 
Others  one,  others  four.  But,  like  all  the  other  "golde?i^*  rites  of 
Holy  Mother,  it  costs  an  immense  sum  to  get  into  the  ghostly 
calendar,  and  be  a  god!  This  is  one  way  by  which  St.  Peter's 
purse  is  replenished,  when  it  gets  low! 

I  shall  adduce  a  specimen  of  a  miracle  confirming  the  ghostly 
honor.  The  idol  of  Pazzi,  Italy,— namely,  St.  Mary  Magdalene, 
received  canonization  for  this  among  many  other  marvellous 
things.  When  the  Virgin's  body  after  death  was  exposed  in  church, 
a  young  man  of  profligate  inorals  came  among  others  to  see  it, 
touch  it,  and  venerate  it.  On  his  approach,  the  dead  body  grave- 
ly, and  in  disgust,  turned  round  its  hfiad  from  him,  as  from  "a  hor- 
ror of  that  dunghill!"  ^  This  was  witnessed  and  testified  to,  by  no 
less  than  one  Jesuit  Priest!  Another  evidence  of  an  infalHble  na- 
ture, and  which  is  sure  to  gain  the  ghostly  honor,  is  this ;— the 
bones  and  dust  of  Saints,  in  their  graves  emit  a  sweet  and  deli- 
cious odour !  This  is  "  the  odour  of  sanctity."  I  find  in  this  same 
bull  of  the  Pope  which  canonized  this  idol  of  Pazzi,  that  this  is 
affirmed  of  this  "Virgin  Magdalene."     It  begins,  "not  without 


245 

good  reason  with  that  incorruption  and  good  odour  of  her  body 
which  continues  to  this  day,  &c."  At  Blois,  in  France,  when  the 
chest  of  relics,  kept  in  thejxirish  of  St.  Victor,  was  opened,  the 
monk  of  St.  Lomer,  cried  out  that  ho  felt  a  very  surct  odour  ;  and 
others  seized  with  the  exemplary  infection,  said  they  felt  the  sweet 
smell  of  roses  and  the  jessamine  from  the  dead  Saint's  bones  ! 
See  vol.  i.  p.  8.  10,  Frauds  of  Roman  monks  and  priests  :  Prot 
i.  373  Glasg.  edit. 

In  the  absence  of  these  Saints, — Holy  Mother  Church  lias  care- 
fully collected  innumerable  specimens  of  their  relics;  which  are 
venerated  and  bowed  down  to.  Indeed  a  Roman  chapel  is  not 
considered  duly  consecrated  without  relics.  The  followino-  are  a 
few  of  the  holy  and  venerated  relics  to  St.  Peter's,  Rome :  name- 
ly:— The  cross  of  the  good  thief :  St.  Joseph's  ax  and  saw:  St. 
Anthony's  Mill  sto?ie,  on  which  he  sailed  into  Muscovy.  In  other 
churches  in  Europe,  they  have  a  little  specimen  of  the  manna  of 
the  wilderness  ;  a  comb  of  the  Virgin  Mary ;  an  arm  of  St.  Laza- 
rus; a  finger  and  an  arm  of  St.  Ann,  the  Virgin's  Mother;    St. 

Patrick's  staff,  by  which  he  expelled  the  toads  from  Ireland : and 

what  is  very  appropriate, — a  piece  of  the  rope  with  w^hich  Judas 
hanged  himself  j  a  vial  of  the  Virgin's  Milk ;  a  vial  of  the  breath 
of  St.  Joseph,  caught  by  an  angel,  as  he  was  blowing  hard,  when 
cleaving  wood !  This  rare  relic  was  long  adored  in  France 
piously  carried  to  Venice,  and  lastly,  deposited  in  Rome !  And', 
finally,  the  head  of  St  Dennis,  which  he  caught  up  and  carried  two 
miles  under  his  arm,  after  it  had  been  cutofi'I  See  Phil.  Lib  June 
1818.  Prot.  vol.  2.  p.  12.  Glasg.  edit. 

In  furnishing  the  relIcs  of  Saint's  bones,  whole  church  yards 
and  cemeteries  have  been  ransacked ;  and  sold  to  the  simple  faith- 
ful, for  objects  of  adoration  and  idols  !  Chips  of  the  cross  are  in 
all  monasteries,  and  chapels.  Could  these  fragments  be  collected 
they  would  prove  that  the  cross  must  have  been  large  enough  to 
build  our  United  States  Navy  !  in  many  churches  there  is  a 
head  of  John  the  Baptist.  "  How  thankful  I  am,"  said  a  dio-nita- 
ry  of  the  Roman  Church,  on  being  shown  a  Baptist  head ;  "This  is 
the  fourth  head  of  John,  which  I  have  seen  in  France  !"  And  Dr. 
McCulloch  tells  us,  that  some  years  ago,  five  pilgrims  arrived  in 
Rome  with  relics  from  the  Holy  Land:  and  it  was  discovered 
that  each  of  them  had  a  foot  of  the  Ass  which  carried  our  Lord 
into  Jerusalem ! 

4th.  In  the  grave  pretensions  of  the  Romish  Church  to  miracu- 
lous powers,  there  is  a  singular  exhibition  of  fanaticism.  You  are 
aware,  gentlemen,  that  you  lay  unblushing  claims  to  miracles. 
"  The  Catholic  Church," — says  Dr.  Milner,  Let.  23,  p.  87  &c,* 
"  being  always  the  chaste  spouse  of  Christ"— Mirabile  dictu  .'—and 
"continuing  to  bring  forth  children  of  heroical  sanctity,  God  fails 


246 

not  in  this,  any  more  than  in  past  ages,  to  illustrate  her  and  them, 
hy  unquestionable  miracles !"  And  he  proceeds  to  give  rare  spe- 
cimens. A  nun  foretold  the  catastrophe  of  Louis  XVI.  A  certain 
Benedict  Labre  prophesied,  and  wrought  miracles ;  and  convert- 
ed an  American  clergyman  called  Thayer.  In  1814,  a  man  who 
had  got  his  back  bone  actually  broken,  was  made  whole  by  mak- 
ing a  pilgrimage  to  Garswood,  near  Wigan,  Old  England  ;  and 
there  getting  the  sign  of  the  Cross  made  on  his  back,  by  the  holy 
relic  of  Arrowsmith's  hand — a  holy  priest  who  was  killed  in  the 
days  of  Charles  I.  This  is  a  small  affair  compared  to  more  an- 
cient ones.  St.  Patrick  is  said  to  have  sailed  over  to  Ireland  on 
a  millstone;  a  feat  as  clever  as  that  of  St.  Anthony's!  St.  Dennis, 
we  have  seen,  carried  his  own  head  two  miles  after  it  was  cut  off! 
"  St.  Francis  of  Salens,"  says  Butler  in  his  lives  of  the  saints  [i.  168 
&c.]  "raised  the  dead;  cured  the  palsy,  and  the  blind."  St. 
Francis  of  Paula,  raised  from  the  dead  a  young  man  and  restor- 
ed him  to  his  mother.  [Butler  i.  361.]  St.  Francis,  the  founder  of 
the  Franciscans,  was  favored  with  visions,  and  revelations  of  an 
apostoHc  grandeur.  He  predicted  nothing  less  than  his  own 
death:  and  did  many  miracles  by  his  intercession,  after  his  death. 
Butler  and  St.  Bonaventure  affirm  this,  but  give  no  evidence ;  and 
toil  us  not  how  they  knew  his  miracles  after  his  death  !  Moreo- 
ver, he  had  a  vision  of  a  seraph  with  six  wdngs  :  this  presented  to 
his  view  the  visible  crucified  body  of  Christ.  And  the  effect  oC 
this  was,  that  the  said  seraph  "  caused  the  soul  of  St.  Francis  to  be 
interiorly  inflamed  with  seraphic  ardor  :  and  his  body  to  have  and 
to  retain  the  similar  wounds  of  Christ."  "  His  hands  and  feet  were 
pierced  through;  and  the  holes  seemed  to  retain  the  round  black 
headed  nails  of  hard  flesh  in  his  palms  and  in  his  feet !  And  their 
long  points  on  the  other  side,  were  turned  back,  as  if  clenched 
with  a  hammer  !  And  in  his  left  side  there  was  a  red  wound  as 
if  made  by  a  lance.  Pope  Alexander  IV.  had  the  felicity  of  wit- 
nessing all  these  ;  and  to  give  currency  and  stability  to  these 
miraculous  and  ingenious  scratchings,  his  Holiness  preached  a 
serm.on  on  the  solemn  occasion !  And  the  simple  faithful  believe 
this  in  preference  to  the  only  rule  of  faith  ;  and  worship  St. 
Francis  of  Assissium,  as  another  Saviour! 

St.  Wenefride  was  a  noble  lady  of  Wales.  Being  a  nun,  she 
could  not  yield  to  the  suit  of  Caradoc  the  young  prince.  Being 
enraged  at  this,  he  pursued  her,  and  wdth  a  cruel  blow  cut  off  her 
head.  Tliis  originated  three  splendid  miracles,  which  taken  to- 
gether, are  greater  than  any  recorded  in  the  Holy  Bible  !  In  the 
1st  place,  St.  Beuno  interfered  and  settled  the  career  of  the  young 
villain  !  He  made  the  earth  open  under  his  feet,  and,  Korah-like, 
he  was  sunk  down  into  the  bowels  of  the  earth  !  Then  2d,  on 
the  spot  where  the  dead  nun's  head  fell,  a  well  opened,  and  pour- 


247 

ed  its  salutary  streams;  and  that  ''  Holy  well'*  works  niiracles,  it 
is  supposed,  until  this  day  !  Then  3d,  St  Beuno  took  up  the  nun's 
head,  kissed  it ;  placed  it  on  the  bleeding  stump  ;  covered  it  with 
his  mantle:  said  mass:  prayed  to  the  Virgin  Mary  !  And,  behold, 
St.  WenelVide  jumped  up,  j)crrcctly  well;  her  head  being  on  exact- 
ly as  usual:  and  the  evidence  of  the  cure  was  perpetuated  by  the 
appearance  of  a  tine  circle  like  a  thread,  around  her  neck; — that 
being  the  place  where  the  head  and  neck  were  nicely  cemented 
together  !  Apostles  and  pro})hets  !  did  ye  ever  any  thing  to  match 
this  ! ! !     See  Butler's  Lives,  &c. 

St.  David,  I  presume  the  king  of  Scotland,  who  builded  so  many 
chapels  and  cathedrals,  once  ordered  St.  Kired  to  come  to  a  Synod 
on  weighty  business.  The  saint  excused  himself  on  account  of 
his  being  latne  and  crooked.  St.  David  immediately  prayed  him 
straight.  But  the  old  saint  still  lingering,  the  choleric  St.  David 
forthwith  prayed  him  crooked  and  lame  again,  to  teach  him  pro- 
per manners. 

St.  Patrick  in  the  Romish  legends,  receives  credit  and  saintly 
homage  for  raising  a  boy  from  the  dead,  after  he  had  been  near- 
ly devoured  by  hogs  I  And  on  another  occasion,  he  fed  14,000 
people,  with  the  flesh  of  one  cow,  two  wild  boars,  and  two  stags  ! 
And  to  crown  the  miracle,  the  simple  faithful  assure  us  that  the 
cow  was  seen  alive  next  day,  in  the  pasture  field! 

St.  Xavier  had  a  valuable  consecrated  crucifix.  On  a  certain 
day,  he  dropped  it  overboard,  into  the  sea.  He  was  quite  incon- 
solable. But,  it  came  to  pass  that  as  he  was  walking  on  the  shore 
in  the  land  whither  he  had  gone,  to  his  astonishment  and  indis- 
cribable  joy,  he  saw  the  very  crucifix  he  had  lost,  moving  towards 
him,  on  the  waves!  As  he  hastened  down  to  the  water's  edge, 
behold!  it  was  very  reverently  and  devoutly  laid  down  at  his 
feet,  by  a  crab,  who  had  borne  it  through  the  deep,  miraculously, 
to  the  feet  of  the  holy  Saint !  Dr.  Milner,  speakiilg  of  St.  Xa- 
vier's  miracles  in  general,  says,  that  "they  were  verified  soon 
after  the  saint's  death,  by  virtue  of  a  commission  from  John  III. 
King  of  Portugal."  See  Letter  24,  6z:c.  But  as  a  writer  has  justly 
observed,  it  was  no  miracle  of  St.  Xavier:  the  crab  has  the  whole 
merit:  and  he  recommends  him  to  his  Holiness'  notice,  to  give 
him  due  honors,  at  his  next  diet  of  canonization!  Palmam  qui 
meruit,  ferat ! 

The  Roman  Saints  were  particularly  successful  in  their  wrest- 
lings, and  coups  du  mai?i  with  the  devil  and  his  demons.  On  one 
occasion,  vSt.  Phillip  Ncrius,  in  1555,  saw  a  person  near  the  baths 
of  Diocletian;  and  as  he  seemed  at  one  moment  young,  and  the 
next  moment  old,  the  Saint,  suspected  it  to  be  Satan  at  some  trick. 
Whereupon  he  summoned  him,  "in  the  name  of  Christ  to  discover 
himself."      And  instantly  the  devil   fled  in  great  precipitation, 


248 

leaving  a  loathsome  scent  in  the  place ;  the  very  reverse  of  the 
bones  of  the  Saints.  And  hence  he  knew,  says  he,  that  it  was 
Satan!  See  the  Acta  Sanct,  Tom.  6.  Antwerp  edit,  of  1688. 
Maii.  26.     This  is  a  famous  Roman  work. 

St.  Francis  was  once  sorely  tempted  by  a  devil  in  the  form  of 
a  lovely  young  female — an  appalHng  object  to  a  Priest!  But,  one 
evening,  as  he  again  assailed  the  Saint,  "he  spit  in  the  devil's  face." 
The  Roman  historians  gravely  add, — ^^being  "confounded  and 
disgracefully  defeated,  the  devil  fled  !"     Acta  Sa?icL  Supra, 

St.  Andrew  of  Salus  was  once  assailed  by  the  devil,  armed  with 
an  ax,  and  aided  by  several  demons  with  clubs  and  lances.  In 
their  assault,  the  Saint  invoked  St.  John  the  Apostle.  Upon  this 
John  instantly  appeared,  in  the  form  of  an  old  man,  and  putting 
his  back  to  the  door,  to  prevent  all  egress,  he  ordered  the  holy 
ones  who  accompanied  him,  to  chain  down  each  of  the  devils,  and 
with  the  chain  taken  from  St.  Andrew's  neck,  to  scourge  them 
thoroughly.  This  was  done  to  so  effectual  a  purpose,  that  the 
devils  cried  out  "Mercy!  mercy!  mercy!"  And  the  holy  St* 
Andrew,  it  is  added,  by  our  Roman  historians,  could  not  restrain 
himself  from  bursting  into  laughter, — "risu  correptus  est," — at 
the  complete  belabouring  given  to  these  unruly  fiends;  and  at 
their  wild  screams!  See  Acta  Sancta  Tom.  6.  Maii.  28. 

St.  Dominic,  while  sitting  in  his  dormitory  writing  by  candle 
light,  was  assailed  by  the  devil  in  the  form  of  a  monkey,  strutting, 
and  making  grimaces  before  him  I  On  this,  the  Saint  ordered 
him  to  come  forthwith,  and  hold  his  candle,  which,  without  a 
candleslick,  the  crafty  Saint  put  it  into  the  demon's  hand.  Pre- 
sently the  candle  being  burned  out,  the  devil's  fingers  began  to  be 
burned:  and  he  wailed  and  howled  !  Nothing  moved  by  this,  the 
Saint  ordered^him  to  hold  on!  And  the  devil  was  compelled  to 
hold  the  burning  flame,  until  his  forefinger  was  actually  consumed 
unto  the  joint;  "usque  ad  juncturam  manus,  totus  crematus  est!" 
And  to  complete  the  victory,  this  holy  founder  of  the  Dominicans, 
gave  the  devil  a  smart  blow  with  his  walking  cane,  and  said,  "De- 
part, thou  wicked  one!"  The  blow  sounded  as  if  he  had  struck 
a  dry  bladder  full  of  wind.  "Upon  this  the  devil  fled,  leaving  a 
stench  behind,  which  plainly  discovered  who  this  creature  was!" 
See  Acta  Amplior.  St  Dom.  Augusti  14.  Finch  p.  419.  This, 
you  know,  gentlemen,  is  a  morselof  your  own  sober  history,  here 
detailed. 

The  fanaticism  of  the  Roman  writers  is  further  displayed  in  the 
object  for  which  they  hold  up  these  monstrous  figments  and  dia- 
bolical rencontres.  Hear  their  own  words.  "Truly  this  man 
(St.  Dominic)  is  to  be  extolled  among  the  angelic  powers,  who  so 
powerfully  confounds  and  reproves  diabolical  wickedness.'* 

Finally,  not  only  have  men  but  even  staxxjes  and  images  wrought 


249 

miraculous  wonders.  So  late  as  1796, ''official  memoirs,"  relative 
to  "miraculous  events,"  were  published  and  signed,  and  authenti- 
cated by  Dr.  Bray,  Archbishop  of  Cashel,  and  Dr.  Troy,  Arch- 
bishop of  Dublin,  and  twelve  other  dignitaries  of  the  Romish 
Church  of  Ireland.  In  these  ''Memoirs"  it  is  stated  that  in  May, 
1790,  at  Toriccllo,  a  torrent  of  tears  ran  down  from  the  eyes  of 
a  icoodcn  llrgin  Mary  !  And  such  a  perspiration  flowed  from  her 
as  to  wet  the  clothes,  ^^applied  hi/  thefaithfiiiy  Mem.  p.  217. 

On  July  9,  1790,  a  picture  called  jDe//c  Muratlc,  was  observed 
to  move  its  eyes  in  a  miraculous  manner.  The  circular  move- 
ment of  the  eyes  continued  for  many  months  !  The  result  of  this 
was  the  procuring  of  many  gifts,  large  sums  of  money,  &c.  for 
the  Virgin;  and  a  marvellous  excitement  took  place  ;  and  nothing 
but  prayers  and  vows  to  holy  Mary  was  heard  !  Immense  crowds 
of  devotees  were  constantly  before  the  painting;  and  altars  were 
everywhere  erected  to  the  Virgin;  and  a  prodigious  impulse 
given  by  this  lying  wonder,  to  the  Romish  devotion!  See  Off. 
Memoirs,  p.  35,  and  Finch  p.  280,  281. 

5th.  Doctrinal  sentiments  and  rites  have  been  defined  and  set- 
tled by  visions  and  revelations,  in  the  Roman  Church.  The  ori- 
ginal followers  of  St.  Francis  were  frightful  fanatics.  The  holy 
mission  of  this  Saint  being  estabHshed  by  his  miracles,  his  three 
holy  wounds,  canonization,  and  the  miracles  achieved,  after  death, 
by  his  intercession,  his  followers  were  prepared  to  receive  him,  as 
a  second  Jesus.  In  a  book  called  The  Jlozcers  of  St.  Francis,  it  is 
written,  "that  those  only  were  saved  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  who 
lived  before  St.  Francis ;  but  all  that  followed,  were  redeemed  by 
the  blood  of  St.  Francis  T  (See  Eymericus,  and  Wolfii  il.  Lect. 
Memor.  cent.  13.  See  also  Bishop  Stillingfleet,  on  the  Idol  and 
Fanat.  of  the  Rom.  Church,  p.  286.)  And  the  votaries  of  this  man, 
the  Franciscans,  in  the  words  of  Petrus  Johannes,  made  the  Rule 
of  St.  Francis  equal, — nay  to  be  the  very  same  as  that  of  the 
gospel  of  Christ ! 

The  doctrine  of  the  immaculate  conception  of  the  Virgin,  long 
distracted  the  Holy  Mother  Church.  The  Franciscans  held  that 
she  was  born  as  pure  as  an  angel ;  and  I  find  that  father  Dr.  Power 
holds  this,  and  teaches  it  in  his  manual.  On  the  contrary,  the 
Dominicans  utterly  denied  it.  Who  was  to  settle  this?  Deo  dig- 
nus  vindice  nodus  !  The  Holy  Bible  says  nothing  of  her  immacu- 
late purity.  Besides,  the  "Holy  Mother  Church"  denies  the  Word 
of  God  to  be  her  only  Rule.  Anselm  produces  the  evidence  of  an 
apparition  in  a  storm  (a  very  fit  season!)  to  some  Abbot;  this 
vision  announced  the  Virgin's  purity,  and  admonished  all  good 
men  to  keep  the  feast  of  the  conception.  One  Nerbertus  had  another 
vision, — no  less  than  the  Holy  Virgin  herself  enforcing  the  same 
thing.  St.  Gertrude  also  had  revelations  to  the  same  purport: 
32 


250 

then  St.  Bridget  brings  not  a  few,  but  many  revelations  to  the 
same  purport ;  and  lastly  Johanna  a  Cruce.  These  were  solemnly 
declared  by  the  Doctors  to  be  such  "that  no  man  can  reject  them 
unless  they  intend  to  be  as, great  heretics  as  Erasmus!"  the  Ca- 
thoHc  Erasmus !   Eheu ! 

But  unfortunately,  fanaticism  stops  not  always  on  the  right  side  ; 
that  is  to  say — your  side,  gentlemen,  who  believe  in  "the  immacu- 
late conception."  For,  while  Baronius  gives  us  the  above  details, 
Antonius  and  Cajetan  assure  us  that  St.  Catharine  had  a  holy 
vision  and  revelation ;  and  it  was  told  her  from  high  and  holy 
heaven,  that  the  Virgin  was  conceived  in  original  sin  like  other 
people  !  Great  names  condemned  St.  Bridget's  visions.  Cajetan, 
for  instance,  calls  them  old  wives's  fables  and  dreams. — Sit  fas 
loqui! — But  she  was  approved  by  doctors,  and  cardinals;  and  her 
holy  visions  and  revelations  declared  to  be  divine,  by  Pope  Boni- 
face IX.,  who  accordingly,  enrolled  her  among  the  saints,  and 
other  idols  worshipped  in  your  Church !  But  after  all,  "Holy 
Mother  Church"  gives  each  of  them  fair  play,  as  Bishop  Stilling- 
fleet  justly  observes.  She  approves  the  revelations  of  both ! 
Pronounces  the  authors  of  the  contradictory  revelations  both 
equally  inspired  by  God !  And  in  the  R.  Breviary,  8th  of  October, 
you  worship  St.  Bridget;  and  in  your  prayers  to  her,  "confess 
these  revelations  to  have  come  immediately  from  God  to  her." 
And  in  one  of  the  lessons  for  that  day,  you  devoutly  "magnify  the 
multitude  of  her  divine  revelations."  And  in  the  R.  Breviary, 
April  30,  you  magnify  the  saintess  who  opposed  the  immaculate 
conception,  as  much  as  its  heroine.  St.  Catharine's  "holy  ex- 
tacies"  are  glorified  in  the  Lesson  for  the  day;  and  you  adore 
piously  "the  five  rays  coming  from  the  five  wounds  of  Christ, 
making  five  miraculous  marks  on  the  correspondent  parts  of  her 
sacred  body,  namely,  hands,  feet,  and  side !  Dr.  Power  yields  his 
solemn  faith  to  St.  Bridget:  Pray  to  whom  do  Mr.  Levins  and 
Dr.  Varela  yield  the  simple  faith  of  their  pious  souls? 

6th.  The  great  Monkish  Orders  have  been  founded  by  fanatics ; 
in  their  raving  fanaticism.  First,  the  Carthusians  were  founded 
by  St.  Bruno  :  he  was  guided  to  the  spot  where  he  found  his  mo- 
nastery, by  a  vision  of  seven  stars  vouchsafed  to  his  coadjutor, 
St.  Hugo.  "Many  miracles  after  his  death,"  says  Butler,— 
"attested  his  sanctity,  and  favor  with  God."  Lives  of  the  Saints 
iL  459,  &c.  The  manner  ot  St.  Bruno's  conversion,  as  narrated 
by  no  less  than  sixty  Catholic  writers,  indicates  that  he  commenc- 
ed his  career  in  fanaticism.  He  was  standing  by  when  the  fune- 
ral service  was  being  said  over  a  Priest;  when  the  dead  man 
started  up,  and  said,  "by  the  just  judgment  of  God  I  am  damned!" 
Having  said  this  he  instantly  died  again.  By  this  was  St.  Bruno 
converted! — Launoy,  c.  5, 


251 

Second.  The  Benedictines  were  founded  by  St.  Benedict.  This 
Roman  worthy  was  favored  with  an  incredible  variety  of  visions 
and  revelations.  He  predicted  marvellous  events  and  wrought 
many  miracles.  The  thorns  and  brambles  on  which  he  rolled,  in 
order  to  expel  lusts, — grew  up,  and  had  the  honor  of  having  St. 
Francis  to  engraft  roses  on  them ;  which  always  bloomed  in  win- 
ter. When  a  boy  lell  into  the  river,  he  foresaw  it,  while  in  his 
cave;  sent  his  servant,  who  walked  on  the  water  some  distance, 
and  juillcd  the  boy  out '  When  some  wicked  persons  brought  him 
poisoned  drink,  he  made  the  sign  of  the  cross  over  it ;  and  the 
vessel  burst  into  a  thousand  pieces!  He  was  so  sharp-sighted 
that  he  could  see  spirits !  He  saw  "the  little  black  devil  which  led 
away  a  monk  from  prayers."  I  am  soberly  quoting  your  writer's 
own  words,  gentlemen.  He  saw  his  sister's  soul  enter  heaven  in 
the  shape  of  a  dove !  And  that  of  the  good  bishop  of  Capua,  in  a 
fiery  circle !  And  finally,  "he  was  rapt  up  into  heaven,  and  saw 
God  face  to  face!!!"  See  Butler,  Bollandi  Acta  Sanct.  Vit.  Be- 
ned.     Stilling,  p.  263,  &c. 

Third.  The  Dominicans  were  founded  by  St.  Dominick,  whose 
character,  as  an  extravagant  fanatic,  we  have  already  noticed. 
He  had  his  first  meeting  with  St.  Francis  at  Rome ;  and  there  he 
made  known  his  modest  and  spiritual  vision  which  he  saw ;  namely, 
'"that  Christ  was  just  coming  to  destroy  the  wicked  world ;  but  his 
mother,  the  Virgin,  stopped  him;  and  informed  him  that  she  had 
two  famous  servants  who  were  to  reform  the  world;  he  himself 
was  one  whom  the  Lord  approved  as  one  who  would  do  his  work," 
&c.  See  Rainald,  A.  D.  1216.  n.  48.  Stilling,  p.  273.  Wolfius  in 
his  Lect.  Memor.  cent.  13,  p.  509,  tells  us  of  two  statues  set  up  in 
St.  Mark's  Church  of  Venice;  one  of  St.  Paul,  with  this  inscription, 
— "By  him  we  go  to  Christ;"  the  other,  a  statue  of  St.  Dominick, 
with  this  modest  Catholic  inscription,  "By  him  we  go  easier  to 
Christ!"  This  order  was, in  all  respects,  worthy  of  such  a  found- 
er; they  were,  as  bishop  Stillingfleet  says,  "the  most  blasphemous 
enthusiasts  the  world  ever  saw." 

Fourth.  The  Franciscans  were  founded  by  the  companion  of 
this  fanatic;  and  was  personally  xnoYe  of  a  fanatic  than  St.  Domi- 
nick. St.  Bonaventure  declared  on  oath  that  Christ  revealed  it  to 
him  that  by  "the  Angel's  ascending  out  of  the  east,  having  the 
seal  of  the  living  God,"  St.  John  meant  no  other  than  St.  Fraticis! 
And  this  is  the  motto  under  his  picture;  and  is  applied  the  same 
way  by  Pope  Leo  X.  St.  Francis  "had  no  teacher  but  Christ; 
and  learned  all  by  an  immediate  revelation."  He  also  heard  an 
instinctive  voice  issuing  from  a  crucifix!  Even  the  Pope  had  a 
revelation  approving  him,  after  he  had  been  disposed  to  reject 
good  St.  Francis.  This  revelation  satisfied  his  Holiness's  mind; 
and  he  approved  of  the  order  of  the  Franciscans.     See  Bonavent, 


252 

Life  of  St.  Francis,  cap.  3,  sect.  1—7.  Stilling,  p.  272.  St.  Brid- 
get had  a  holy  vision  of  him  -:  namely,  that  the  "Franciscan  Rule 
was  not  composed  by  the  wisdom  of  men,  but  by  God  himself; 
nay,  that  every  word  in  it,  was  inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost" 
"And  this,"  says  this  holy  Roman  prophetess,  "is  the  case  with  all 
the  religious  orders."  See  Bridgittas  Revel.  L.  7,  Cap.  20,  p.  559, 
col.  1 ;  Still,  p.  273. 

Fifth.  The  Carmelites  Launoy  in  his  book  "De  Vis.  Sim.  Stockii, 
cap.  1,"  declares  that  Simon  Stockius  had  a  holy  vision  of  the 
Virgin  Mary,  in  which  she  imparts  to  him  what  was  befitting 
respecting  the  branch  of  Mendicants  called  Carmelites.  And 
such  was  the  marvellous  condescension  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  that 
upon  Simon's  devout  prayers  to  her,  she  appeared  to  him  with 
the  very  habit  and  fashion  of  dress  which  she  would  have  them 
wear.  And  what  crowns  the  whole  with  a  peculiar  glory,  she 
gave,  says  Launoy,  a  promise  greater  than  any  that  her  son 
Christ  had  ever  given;  namely,  "that  whosoever  died  in  that 
HABIT  SHOULD  NOT  PERISH  IN  HELL !"     Prccious  garment! 

Sixth.  Even  Jansenists  had  recourse  to  an  attempt  at  the  mira- 
culous: but  they  only  met  with  a  prompt  exposure,  and  a  sad 
overthrow.     See  Mosheim,  V.  209,  10.  Glasg.  Ed. 

Sixth  ;  Jesuitism  was  founded  and  organized  by  a  fanatic  not 
surpassed  by  Mahomed  or  St.  Francis.  This  was  Ignatius 
Loyola.  He  had  been  a  soldier,  and  was  lamed  in  battle.  He  was 
most  illiterate.  But  this  did  not  stand  in  the  way  of  visions  and 
revelations.  I  shall  copy  a  few  specimens  from  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic authors  Maffeius,  Ribadeneira,  and  Orlandinus.  St.  Peter, 
says  these  writers,  "  appeared  unto  him  before  he  was  so  far  re- 
covered as  to  be  able  to  read."  In  a  fit  of  zeal  he  made  a  solemn 
vow  to  himself  to  be  a  knight  of  the  Virgin.  He  made  this  vow 
on  his  knees  before  her  image.  At  that  moment  the  room  shook; 
the  window  glasses  were  broken ;  and  a  dreadful  noise  took  place. 
"  An  argument,"  says  Orlandino,  "  that  the  devil  then  took  leave 
of  him."  A  point  ol  very  questionable  uncertainty.  It  is  more 
likely  that  the  said  personage  was  making  an  ingress,  rather  than 
an  egress  at  this  moment;  if  we  may  judge  from  the  future  horrid 
convulsions  of  all  Europe,  by  his  pious  followers  the  Jesuits  !  Some 
time  after  this,  the  Virgin  appeared  with  great  glory  about  hei', 
and  her  babe  in  her  lap !  What  Virgin — by  the  way, — could 
this  be  ?  And  what  babe  ?  Could  the  man,  insane  as  he  was, 
mean  the  glorified  Redeemer,  Jesus  Christ  ?  Ignatius  was  now 
fully  clothed  on  a  model  given  by  a  divine  trance.  He  had  a 
long  coat  of  hair  cloth,  a  bag  of  water  in  the  one  hand,  a  crab 
tree  staflf  in  the  other ;  he  was  girded  with  an  iron  girdle,  bare 
headed,  with  a  wicker  shoe  on  the  one  foot,  the  other  bare.  He 
had  a  vision  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  wonderful  communications.  At 
another  time  he   had  "  a  vision  of  the  blessed  Trinitv,  under  a 


253 

corporeal  representation."  In  one  trance  he  continued  eight  days ; 
during  which, — blessed  vision  for  the  benefit  of  mankind!  he  saw 
the  frame  and  model  of  the  society  of  Jesus, — says  Orland.  L.  i.  28.^ 
In  another  trance  he  saw  God  the  father  commending  St." Ignati- 
us, (that  is  himself,)  to  his  Son  Jesus  Christ ;  who  very  kindly  re- 
ceived him  and  said  with  a  smile,  "  I  will  be  favorable  to  thee  at 
Rome !"  Ribadencira  was  present  at  Rome  when  this  was  told 
in  a  domestic  conterence  of  the  grave  fathers  of  Rome ;  and  he 
records  it,  with  all  suitable  gravitv!  See  Butler's  Lives  of  the 
Saints  Art,  St.  Ignat.  vol.  ii.  p.  262  Dubl.  edit. 

Seventh :  The  leading  ceremonies  and  rites  of  Romanism  are 
founded  in  sheer  fanaticism.  That  is  to  say,  these  gradually 
crept  in  by  designing  men,  as  we  showed  in  Letter  VIII;  but  they 
were  finally  established  in  the  faith  of  the  "  simple  believers,"  by 
visions  and  miraculous  displays.     For  instance : 

1st.  The  making  the  sign  of  the  Cross  is  a  grand  characteristic 
of  Popery.  Miracles  have  followed  this  making  the  sign  of  the 
CROSS.  We  have  seen  already  that  a  saint  discovered  poisoned 
drink  by  making  the  mystic  sign  over  the  vessel ;  and  the  poison- 
ed cup  flew  into  a  thousand  fragments!  "  St.  Walthen  was 
haunted  at  prayers  by  the  devil,  first,  in  the  shape  of  a  mouse," 
— I  am  quoting  gravely,  gentlemen,  from  your  Acta  Sanct.  3. 
Aug.  Tom.  i. — "  then  in  the  form  of  a  pig,  a  barking  dog,  then  a 
wolf,  and  lastly,  of  a  roaring  long  horned  bull !"  But  upon  his 
making  the  sign  of  the  cross,  all  comfortably  vanished  in  a  trice ! 
See  Finch  p.  415.  2dly.  Purgatory  was  a  doctrine  hard  to  be 
established;  it  cost  many  a  vision,  and  dream,  and  fanatical  reve- 
lation. Witness  St.  Gregory's  revelation,  deUvering  the  soul  of 
Trajan  from  the  fires  thereof!  St.  Benedict  saw  the  soul  of  Ger- 
manus,  escape  out  of  it,  and  reach  heaven !  St.  Ignatius  saw  the 
soul  of  Hosias  one  of  the  Jesuits,  escape  and  get  to  glory  !  See 
Maff:  Lib.  1.  cap.  12.  Still,  p.  323.  St.  Bridget  had  a  revelation  to 
the  same  purport  with  that  of  St.  Gregory :  as  certified  by  Sal- 
mer,  Disp.  27,  and  Baron.  Annal.  604.  N  59.  St.  Mathildis  also 
was  successful  this  way.  See  Bellarm.  De  Purgat.  1.  2,  cap.  8. 
Stilling.  251.  3rdly.  Bellarmine  in  a  very  gallant  manner  proves 
Auricular  Confession,  by  a  certain  vision  of  a  tall  and  terribly 
fierce  man,  with  a  book  in  his  hand,  who  blotted  out,  instantly,  all 
the  sins  which  the  humble  thief  confessed  to  the  Priest,  upon  his 
knees.  Bell.  De  Poenit.  1.  3.  cap.  12.  Stilling,  p.  252.  4thly.  It 
will  puzzle  any  of  our  Priests  to  name  one  saint,  or  saintess  who 
has  been  beatified  and  canonized  without  the  evidence  of  an  ap- 
propriation, or  a  vision,  or  a  revelation,  or  a  miracle,  suflicient  to 
satisfy  his  Holiness's  conscience,  in  conferring  the  ghostly  honor ! 
In  proof  of  this,  just  let  any  one  turn  up  Butler's  Lives  of  the 
Saints;  and  he  will  see  on  almost  every  page,  the  rank  evidence 
of  what  we  now^  assert.     5th.  The  feast  of  the  apparition  of  the 


254 

ArcHan-gel  Michael  is  constantly  observed  at  Rome  with  extra- 
ordinary Roman  devotion.  This  was  originated  and  established 
to  the  "  simple  faithful"  by  a  revelation  vouchsafed  to  the  Bishop 
of  Siponto,  and  a  vision  seen  at  the  same  time,  by  a  few  drovers, 
on  the  mountain  Garganus.  See  Legat.  De  Concep.  V.  Mar.  sect 
3.  p.  371.  Still,  p.  353;  256,  Rom.  Brev.  May  8.  6th.  The  long 
and  troublesome  controversy  touching  Easter  Day  was  conveni- 
ently and  quietly  settled,  in  the  Roman  Church,  by  a  revelation 
kindljr  granted  by  some  invisible  agent,  or  other,  to  Hermes.  See 
Legat  De  concept.  &c.  ut  supra.  7th.  The  festival  of  Corpus 
Christi,  was  instituted  by  Pope  Urban  IV.  in  order  to  confound 
all  gainsayers  against  Transubstantiation  and  the  Mass,  This 
famous  festival  was  originated  by  a  revelation  granted  by  some 
being,  or  other,  to  Mother  JuHana  of  immortal  memory  with  you, 
gentlemen.  This  same  Mother  Juliana  was  no  common  crone.  I 
shall  quote  from  your  writer  Bzovius  Annal.  Tom.  13.  Anno. 
1230.  No.  16.  and  Still,  p.  254.  "  She  had  raptures,  extacies, 
and  prophecies."  She  was  so  sharp  at  discerning  things  invisible, 
that  she  knew  people's  thoughts:  "  She  wrestled  with  devils,  dis- 
coursed with  Apostles,  and  wrought  many  miracles."  In  all  her 
visions  she  always  saw  the  full  moon,  "  with  a  snip  taken  from  her 
roundness."  For  twenty  years  she  wrested  with  the  invisible 
powers,  with  all  the  characteristic  curiosity  of  a  female,  to  discov- 
er what  this  same  "  snip"  could  possibly  typify  I  This  vision  she 
revealed  to  De  Lausanna,  who  told  it  to  De  Trecis,  who  was 
afterwards  Pope  Urban  IV.  All  could  not  discover  what  this 
"  snip"  on  the  moon's  circular  edge  indicated.  It  was  something 
involving  the  interests  of  "  Holy  Mother  Church."  Of  this  Mother 
Juliana  was  most  sure  :  but  still  what  that  was,  she  could  not  read 
from  her  mystic  lore.  But  two  prophetesses  can  make  marvel- 
lous discoveries.  Mother  Isabella  came,  apropos,  to  her  aid.  She 
had  a  vision.  And  say  Diestemius,  and  Binius,  "  this  Isabella  was 
so  much  intoxicated  by  her  vision,  that,  out  of  the  abundance  of 
her  spiritual  drunkenness"  (these  are  the  Roman  writer's  own 
words,)  "  she  declared  that  she  would  promote  the  Holy  Feast, 
although  the  whole  world  should  oppose  her."  This  same  feast 
of  Corpus  Christi,  and  solemn  procession  of  the  "  Bread  made 
God,"  through  the  streets  with  "  devout  ruffians"  in  front,  with 
carbines,  to  knock  down  all  who  refused  to  worship  the  new 
breaden  God, — the  Creator,  created  by  the  Priest,  in  the  Mass, — 
this  same  feast  was  Mother  Juhana's  •'  snip,"  in  the  edge  of  the 
moon  !  This  holy  festival  being  instituted,  the  moon  was  hence- 
forth round  as  a  perfect  circle,  and  all  is  complete.  Such  is  the 
edifying  origin  of  Corpus  Christi !  How  much  you  owe  to  Mother 
Juhana,  and  to  the  simple  devotion  of  Urban  IV  ! ! !     In  addition 


255 

to  Bzovius,  see  Diestemius,  Arnoldus  Boslius,  Petr.  Proemonstra- 
tensis,  Vignier,  and  Molanus.     Also  Still,  p.  256,  257. 

Lastly ;  indulge  me  in  one  instance  more.  Your  sanctum 
sanctorum,  and  unmatched  peculiarity  of  the  Mass  was  established 
on  fanatical  revelations!  This  precious  morsel  of  fanaticism, 
shall  claim  our  attention  in  due  time.  At  present  1  allude  to  the 
wild  lanaticism  by  which  it  was  established,  gradually,  in  the  be- 
lief of  the  *'  simple  faithful."  This  corner  stone  of  Popery  had  a 
prodigious  variety  of  revelations  and  miracles  to  establish  it.  I 
shall  select  an  instance  or  two. 

Bellarmine  (De  Sacr.  Euchar.  Lib.  3.  Chap.  8,)  narrates  sev-er- 
al  miracles:  in  one  instance,  says  he,  instead  of  bread,  real  flesh 
was  seen !  that  is  to  say,  the  loaf,  or  wafers,  were  converted  not 
invisibly,  as  now  a  days,  by  half  a  miracle  with  you,  but  visibly, 
and  really,  and  solidly,  and  truly, — into  llesh!  He  does  not  say 
whether  human  or  bestial  flesh  !  In  another  instance,  now  a  day, 
says  he,  instead  of  the  wafer,  Christ  was  seen,  bona  fide,  "  in  the 
form  of  a  child  !"  But  why  a  child,  it  is  impossible  for  us  heretics 
even  to  conjecture.     Roman  priests  only  can  tell ! 

But  all  these  are  comparatively  trivial  aflairs  to'the  devotion 
and  faith  of  a  heretic's  horse  !  Miserable  heretics  are  all  Protes- 
tants, when  even  a  horse  bows  down  and  adores  the  breaden 
God!  I  quote  this  from  no  less  a  man  than  your  own  Bellarmine, 
who  solemnly  relates  it  as  sober  history  in  his  book  De  Sac. 
Euchar.  Lib.  3  cap.  8.  St.  Anthony  of  Padua  had  once  an  encoun- 
ter with  a  heretic,  an  Albigensian,  touching  the  change  of  the 
wafer  into  Christ's  flesh.  '•  I  have  a  horse,"  says  the  heretic, — 
"  to  whom  I  shall  give  nothing  for  three  days.  On  the  third  day 
do  you  come  with  the  Host ;  and  I  shall  come  with  the  horse.  I 
shall  pour  out  some  corn  to  him;  but  if  he  forsake  his  corn,  and 
go  and  venerate  the  Host,  then  shall  I  believe!  On  the  day  ap- 
pointed all  the  parties  came;  and  St.  Anthony  in  a  truly  saint-like 
manner,  addressed  a  suitable  and  eloquent  word  of  exhortation  to 
the  horse.  "  In  the  virtue,  and  in  the  name  of  thy  Creator,  whom 
I  truly  hold  in  my  hand,"  says  he, — "I  command  and  enjoin  thee, 
O  horse, to  come,  and  with  humility  revere  him  !"  "  No  sooner  were 
the  words  uttered,"  says  the  grave  Bellarmine, — "  than  the  horse  un- 
mindful of  his  corn,  hastens  towards  the  Host,  in  the  [)riest's  hand ; 
inclining  his  head,  and  devoutly  kneeling  on  his  forefeet,  he  adored 
his  Lord  in  the  best  manner  he  could,  and  confuted  the  lieretic!" 
[See  also  Finch  p.  343.] 

This  assuredly  crowns  the  loftiest  climax  of  all  fan^^ticism  !  A 
priest  creating  his  Creator  out  of  bread  !  A  horse  sensibly  and 
devoutly  bowing  down  and  worshipping  his  Creator  !  And  what 
is  more  amazing  than  all, — a  priest, — a  rational  beino:,  believing 
all  this ! !  I  am.  Gentleman,  yours,  &c.  W.  C.  BROWNLEE, 
Colleg.  Min.of  the  Middle  andN.  Dutch  Churches,  June  4, 1833. 


256 

Reply  of  13r,  l^ower  and  Jfir,  Mjevins^ 
TO   DR.    BROWNLEE. 

No.  9. 

As  clouds  and  wind  when  no  rain  foUoweth,  so  is  a  man  that,  boasteth,  and  does  not  fufii 
his  promises.    Prov.  xxv. — 14.  't»^:,     * 

Rev.  Sir, — In  this  world  of  cares  and  anxieties,  collisions  and 
strifes,  there  are  incidents  and  occurrences  to  be  encountered,  in 
which  the  temper  of  poor  humanity  will  be  severely  tried, — there 
are  happenings  in  which  the  stability  of  earthly  philosophy  will 
be  proved, — there  are  trials  where  courage,  like  gold  in  the  cruci- 
ble, will  be  assayed.  To  escape  every  encounter  and  shock  which 
test  human  disposition  is  not  the  privilege  of  mortals, — under  some 
form  or  other  they  must  be  met.  But,  while  some  sink  in  the 
struggle,  and  betray  those  infirmities  which  are  never  visited  by 
compassion,  others  will  rise  superior  to  the  most  ill  omened  diffi- 
culties, and  ascend  to  victory,  even  under  circumstances,  where 
the  best  cast  judgment  had  prophecied  defeat. 

On  flood  and  in  field,  there  are  so  many  fortuitous  accidents, 
that  the  chances  of  ultimate  success  are  seldom  within  the  pow- 
er of  positive  calculation;  and,  hence,  defeat  does  not  bring  in  its 
train  those  corroding  reflections  which  eat  into  the  mind  and  dis- 
temper its  feelings.  Ingenuity  will  devise  its  excuses, — it  will 
fight  its  battles  over  again,  and  trace  the  causes  of  failure  to  some 
extraneous  or  hidden  cross  purpose  that  should  not  have  interfer- 
ed with  the  final  accomplishment  of  the  undertaking ; — and  repos- 
ing on  this  consoling  plea,  the  mortifications  of  temper  arising  out 
of  non-success  are  mitigated,  their  bitterness  daily  mellowed,  and 
finally  forgotten. 

Not  thus,  however,  in  the  matters  of  mental  collision.  Here 
defeat  is  followed  by  the  worm  that  never  dies.  Here  the  mind 
is  embittered, — the  venom  of  hatred  is  blended  with  every  thought 
against  him  who  has  been  victor.  The  heart-blood  darkens  and 
curdles, — it  mantles  in  the  face  or  recoils  on  the  heart ;  but,  the 
controling  power  to  which  its  ebbs  and  flows  are  obedient,  is  not 
of  earth  or  above  the  earth.  In  intellectual  overthrow  no  excuse 
to  steal  the  anguish  from  disgrace  or  the  pang  from  dishonor  can 
be  sought.  Every  torture  works  in  the  fulness  of  its  pain.  It  is 
mind  against  mind.  The  mind  alone  is  the  combatant,  and  to  the 
mind,  solely,  is  committed  the  guidance  of  the  strife.  The  object 
of  attack,  open  and  unguised,  is  before  its  vision ; — it  is  expressed 
in  plain  words  and  sentences.  There  are  no  zig-zag  ways  of  ap- 
proach, no  trous  de  loup,  no  masked  batteries,  no  subterranean 
mines  to  be  sprung.      If  failure,  if  rout,  be  the  result,  the  mind 


257 

alone,  is  in  fault ; — and,  hence,  the  bitterness  and  corrosive  sul- 
lenness  of  temper  generally  displayed  after  discomfiture. 

The  precedin^^  remarks,  Rev.  Preacher  and  *'  Gcntlenum''  of  the 
Middle  Dutch  Church,  are  not  idle,— they  are  not  im])roperly  in- 
troduced.    If  pondered,  if  ajiplied  to  you,  they  will  explain  the 
acerbity  of  temper  and  recklessness  of  truth  exhibited  by  you  since 
the  commencement  of  the  present   polemic  discussion  on  your 
Rule  of  Faith.     The  application  of  these  remarks  we  entrust  to 
your  ''  Chistiuji  public,"  to  the    members  of  the  Middle  Dutch 
Church,  and  to  your  "highly  intelligent  and  virtuous  ladies."     As 
the  rights  of ''judge  or  jury"  are  denied  to  us,  we  commit  what- 
ever is  delicate  in  insinuation  to  the  trust  of  your  ''friends,^^  con- 
tenting ourselves  with  the  plain  and  stubborn  assertion — your  de- 
feat is  obvious,— it  is  now  admitted  by  the  most  prejudiced  among 
the  elite  of  your  fiock.     It  cannot  be  concealed.     Your  chagrin, 
therefore,  is  no  mystery.     It  is   read  in   every  letter  from  your 
pen  ;    it  is  proclaimed  in  your  invincible  last  to  the  Calvinistic 
community  throughout  this  commonwealth,  in  words  and  asser- 
tions that  need  no  interpreter.  This  motley,  disjointed  and  chaotic 
letter,  this  farrago  of  spectral  hobgoblins,  how  lucidly  it  illustrates 
the  pecuUarities  of  your  mind !     Raked  from  the   old  and  moth 
eaten  records  of  Calvinistic  bigotry  and  slander,  it  revisits,  hke 
the  Ghost  in  Hamlet,  "  the  glimpses  of  the  moon ;"  to  frighten  the 
children  of  the  "  five  hundred  thousand  who  cheer  you  on"  and  if 
you  question  it, 


-•'  it  starts  like  a  guilty  thing 


Upon  di  fearful  summons." 

Yet  you,  its  author,  are  a  Doctor  of  Theology,  a  Ruler  in  Israel, 
a  Preacher  in  the  Middle  Dutch  Church !  You  cannot  prove 
your  Protestant  Rule  of  Faith,  you  cannot  prove  the  Bible  to  be 
the  Word  of  God ;  but  you  can  plunge  into  the  dark  abysses  of 
hatred  and  calumny  against  Catholic  creed,  and  return  with  the 
false  tale,  the  obscene  fiction,  and  the  ribald  jest,  to  strengthen 
hate  and  prejudice,  where  hate  and  prejudice  are  already  unhal- 
lowed and  gnarled.  Truth,  you  pretend  in  your  "  challenge," 
was  the  object  of  your  search,  yet  truth  is  never  on  your  lips! 
You  were  supposed  to  be  a  theologian  and  logician,  but  the  form 
of  sound  words  is  not  found  in  your  letters  !  You  write,  but,  then, 
like  Richard,  the  bantling  of  your  brain  is 


"  scarce  half  made  up 

And  that  so  lamely'and  unfashionably, 
That  dogs  bark  at  it." 

Surely,  Rev.  Gentleman  ^nd.  Writer,  the  days  of  your  ability  have 
come  before  their  time.     But,  still,  charitable  supposing  that  a  ray 
of  some  intellect  yet  lingers  in  the  twilight  recesses  of  your  mind, 
No.  17-1-33 


258 

xve  ask  you  one  question  in  seriousness,  and  await  your  answer. 
Do  you  believe  the  tales  of  which  your  last  letter  is  formed,  to  be 
any  portion  of  Catholic  creed  1  Do  you  imagine  Catholics  will 
admit  your  malignant  fictions,  while  they  mock  and  reject  the 
dreamy  legends  of  the  visionary  among  their  own  silly  writers  ? 
If  you  do,  you  are  requested  to  translate  for  your  "  virtuous  ladies" 
the  following  words  from  Cicero, — "  Au  tu  censes  ullam  anum 
tam  deliram  futuram  fuisse,  ut  illis  somniis  crederet  ?"  Cicer  de 
Divin.  Take  away  faith  from  the  Bible,  and  are  there  not  many 
narrations  that  reason  will  reject  ? 

Our  conviction  of  your  discomfiture  in  the  present  polemic  con- 
test, has  already  been  expressed.  The  victory  achieved  excites 
no  stirrings  of  vanity,  for  it  has  been  too  easily  won.  At  an  early 
period  of  the  discussion,  you  were  informed,  after  the  manner  of 
honest  and  intelligible  compliment,  such  is  our  mode,  that,  had  we 
CHALLENGED,  you  would  uot  liavc  bccn  the  logician,  theologian, 
and  "  Writer'^  selected.  To  every  impartial  and  reflecting  reader 
of  our  respective  letters,  it  is  evident,  that,  from  the  commence- 
ment, to  use  your  own  Scriptural  metaphor,  we  "inserted  the  hook 
in  your  nose."  This  is  not  written  in  the  way  of  boast.  If  your 
*'  Christian  public"  could,  for  an  instant,  hesitate,  the  completion 
of  evidence  is  had  in  your  last  letter.  Your  Rule  of  Faith,  your 
"  matter  of  infinite  importance,"  is  abandoned.  Your  theme  now 
is  farcical  caricature  of  Catholic  doctrine.  Is  this  procedure 
worthy  of  a  Preacher  to  the  respectable  congregation  of  the 
Middle  Dutch  Church  1  Is  it  worthy  of  a  theologian  who  pro- 
fesses intimacy  with  the  Institutes  of  the  shrewd  and  subtle  Calvin? 
Does  it  honor  your  card  in  defence  of  your  "  virtuoiis^^  Dulcinea& 
del  Toboso  ?  All  who  have  read  your  last  will  concede,  without 
insulting  their  judgment,  that  from  your  high  station — a  Calvinis- 
tic  Theologian — you  have  fallen.  As  a  logician  your  name  will 
be  sacred  as  a  pass-word  to  the  realms  of  Bosetia, — and  as  a 
Preacher — the  tear  of  pity  flows,  "Othello's  occupation's  gone!" 
Though  some  concession  must  be  made  to  the  irritability  of  a  mind 
writhing  under  the  torturing  vexation  of  defeat,  still,  it  could  not 
have  been  imagined,  that  bitterness  of  spirit  could  so  far  ascend 
to  mastery  over  discretion,  as  to  cause  forgetfulness  of  the  station 
you  occupy  as  a  minister  of  religion,  as  a  Ruler  in  Israel,  as  an 
interpreter  of  the  "  Hebrew  and  Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Though 
unable  to  meet  our  arguments  or  prove  your  Rule  of  Faith,  if 
reckless  of  your  own  character,  you  should  have  respected  that 
of  your  "friends"  and  the  community  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church 
to  whom  your  services  arc  owing.  The  state  of  mind  in  which 
you  wrote  yoiu  last  letter  is  not  easily  imagined;  it  may,  perhaps, 
though  remotely,  be  conceived  from  the  poetic  language  of  Virgil 


259 

describing  the  unfortunate  Dido  when  Eneas  and  his  companions 
intended  to  leave  Carthage, 

•*  Ilia  doloa  dinimque  nefas  in  pcctorc  vcrsat  ' 

Certii  mori,  varioque  iraruin  fluctuat  ajstu.''- 

As  comniisscration  to  tiie  unfortunate,  even  to  those  who  have 
been  the  authors  of  tlicir  own  mishaps,  is  natural  to  the  human 
breast,  there  may  be  those  among  your  "/WcW^,"  who  deem  our 
remarks  on  tlic  general  tenor  of  your  letters  severe.     But  this  ten- 
der solicitude  for  your  fallen  state  will  be  found  to  be  misjilaced, 
if  impartialitii  will  but  consider  your  unprovoked   "  Challenge," 
your  gross  allusiops,  foul  insinuations,  and  ribald  abuse  of  doc- 
trines, rites  and  ceremonies  held  sacred  by  Catholics.     The  pre- 
cepts of  Christianity  are  never  violated  when  strict  justice  is  dis- 
pensed.    In  the  distribution  of  justice  we  might  have  been  more 
severe,  more  stern,  and  still,  far  within  the  limits  of  the  Cliristian 
law.     Must  not  the  negro  be  painted  black?     When  your  "  Chal- 
lenge'  was  accepted  by  us,  you  were  advised  to  attend  the  "form 
of  sound  words."     Has  this  been  done  ?     No.  Your  interminal)le 
theme  has  been  abuse  and  ribaldry  against  our  creed,— not  argu- 
ment.    Were  w^e  directed  by  the  rigid  laws  of  justice,  our  remarks 
might  have  been  extended  from  your  writings  to  your  character. 
Tlie  induction  is  not  difficult.  An  analysis  of  the  one  would  easily 
guide  to  a  detection  of  the  other.     With  this,  however,  there  shall 
be  no  critical  interference.     It  is  surrendered  to  your  "Christian 
public"  and  your  "rirfwoi^^  ladies."     You  have   ambitioned  the 
high  elevation  of"  Writer''  to  the  Members  of  the  Middle  Dutch 
Church,™you  have  constituted  yourself  the  guardian  and  defend- 
er oi  their  Rule  of  Faith,  you  impugn  the  Catholic  religion,  not  by 
argument,  but  by  dogmatic  assertion,  idle  and  foul  declamation, 
and  it  is  in  the  character  of  this  professionship  you  are  met   by 
your  opponents.     If  our  observations  on  your  letters  do  not,  at  all 
times,  secure  the  approval  of  your  friends,  we  shelter  ourselves 
under  the  philosophic  truth— it  is  not  possible  to  please  all.  While 
there  is  diversity  of  taste,  there  will  be  discrepancy  in  judgment. 
If  at  times  we  are  serious,  there  are  moments  when  a  lighter  tone 
is  indulged.     For  this  indulgence  we  claim  the  protection  of  a 
great  name— Dr.  Johnson.  Mark  his  words,  Rev.  Preacher,  "The 
diversion  of  baiting  an  author  has  the  sanction  ot  all  ages  and  na- 
tions, and  is  more  lawful  than  the  sport  of  teasing  other  animals, 
because  for  the  most  part,  he  comes  voluntary  to  the  stake."     You 
came  voluntary  to  the  stake.     You  proclaimed  your  "  Challenge'' 
against  the  Catholic  Bishop  and  Priests.     Around  this  stake  you 
may  display  your  gambols :  but  should  you  attempt  escape,  there 
is  a  check  string  attached  to  the  "hook  in  your  nose,"  which  will 
always  warn  you  to  keep  within  the  legitimate  circuit.     Should 


260 

your  demeanour,  while  restricted  to  this  legitimate  circuit,  indi- 
cate attention  to  the  "  form  of  sound  words,"  we  shall  respect  you ; 
but  should  you  incline  to  ribald  abuse,  gross  insinuation,  or  exhi- 
bit a  propensity  for  obscene  actions  and  "  virtuous  ladies,"  the  in- 
fliction of  certain  corrections  must  be  administered.  Then  the 
"  form  of  sound  words"  may  be  eUcited,  and  argument  obtained.. 
Then  possibly,  you  may  utter  a  better  defence  of  your  Rule  of 
Faith.  Be  this,  however,  as  it  may,  there  is  authority  for  this  cor- 
rectional process ;  and  the  process  you  must  revere,  if  guided  by 
your  Rule  of  Faith ; — Balaam's  ass  did  not  speak  until  he  was  well  ' 
cudgelled. 

Again,  Rev.  Preacher,  we  must  call  the  attention  of  your 
"  Christian  public"  and  the  Members  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church 
to  the  palpable  and  serious  deficiencies  evident  in  your  nine  crude 
and  chaotic  letters.  Your  contradictions  must  also  be  briefly  re- 
gistered. This  done,  we  proceed  to  what  was  promised  in  our 
last  letter — your  "  final  judge  of  Controversies."  To  aid  facility 
for  future  reference,  they  are  registered  under  the  following  head- 
ing:— DEFICIENCIES,  INCONSISTENCIES,  and  CONTRADICTIONS  CONTAINED 
IN  PREACHER  BrOWNLEE's  FIRST  NINE  LETTERS. 

He  asserted  that  to  "charge  the  Sciiptures  with  obscurity  or 
deficiency,  would  be  to  bring  a  charge  against  the  Holy  Ghost." 
This  obscurity  is  proved  from  his  own  words  defining  his  own 
Rule  of  Faith.  See  our  last  letter,  2d  column.  Therefore,  the 
Preacher  contradicts  himself;  and,  therefore,  his  Protestant  Rule, 
because  obscure,  is  an  unsafe  guide  to  a  future  world.  This  ob- 
scurity was  also  proved  from  texts  of  Scripture.  Our  argument 
has  not  been,  and  cannot  be,  refuted, 

"The  Bible,  alone"  the  Preacher  says,  "is  the  Rule  of  Faith  of 
every  Protestant."  He  believes,  as  an  article  of  faith,  the  inspira^ 
tion  of  the  Bible,  but  this  inspiration  cannot  be  proved  from  the 
Bible,  therefore,  he  admits  an  article  of  faith  not  derived  from  the 
Bible ;— therefore,  the  Bible  alone  is  not  his  only  Rule  of  Faith; 
therefore,  he  contradicts  himself;  and,  therefore,  the  Bible  alone 
is  not  a  sufficient  guide  to  a  future  world.  This  has  not  been  re- 
futed. 

Luther,  directed  by  the  "Holy  Spirit  speaking  to  us  in  the  writ- 
ten Word  of  God,  the  Holy  Scriptures,"  rejected  the  Epistle  of 
St.  James.  Preacher  Brownlee  admits  it.  Is  Luther  right  1  Is 
the  Preacher  in  error?  Is  Luther  in  error?  Is  the  Preacher 
right  ?  No  answer  has  yet  been  given  to  these  queries.  Why 
not  ?  The  canonidty  of  the  Epistle  of  St.  James  is  an  article  of 
faith  with  Preacher  Brownlee,  it  is  not  an  article  of  faith  with 
Luther,  therefore,  the  "  speaking"  of  the  Preacher's  Holy  Spirit 
does  not  infallibly  select  all  the  articles  of  faith ;  therefore,  the 


261 

Preacher's  Protestant  Rule  is  deficient ;  and,  therefore,  it  is  an 
unsafe  guide  to  a  future  world.     We  "challenge"  refutation. 

The  Preacher  says,  "  the  Bihle  contains  the  lohole  religion  ot 
the  Protestant."  But  a  divine  religion  cannot  be  derived  from  the 
Bible  until  the  divine  character  of  the  Bible  be  established.  This 
divine  character  cannot  be  established  by  the  Preacher's  Rule  of 
Faith,  for  the  Bible  itself  cannot  establish  its  own  inspiration. 
Thereto  re,  the  Preacher,  by  his  0217?  Rule  of  Faith,  possesses  no 
c?/r/;R' religion  ; — therefore,  having  no  divine  religion,  the  Preach 
er  is  not  a  Christian,  he  is  a  deist  or  an  infidel.  Therefore,  the 
Preachers  Protestant  Rule  is  an  unsafe  guide  to  a  future  world. 
We  "  challenge"  refutation. 

The  Preacher  asserted  that  "  not  one  sentence  of  inspired  Scrip- 
ture is  known  to  be  lost."  See  his  letter  I\o.  3.  St.  Paul's  epistle 
from  Laodicea  is  lost: — see  Colos.  4.  c.  16  v.  St.  Paul  wrote  an 
epistle  to  ihe  Corinthians  which  is  lost, — see  1  Cor.  5.  c.  9.  v 
Who  is  the  more  veracious  authority  for  the  loss  of  Scripture, — 
St.  Paul  or  Preacher  Brow^nlee?  Why  has  not  the  "  Writer'^  to 
the  Middle  Dutch  Church  refuted  St.  Paul  ? 

The  Preacher  asserted  that  Luther  did  not  reject  the  epistle  of 
St.  James, — see  his  letter  No.  3.  His  words  were  "  /  solemnly 
dejiy.''-  He  was  referred  to  the  original  edition  of  Luther's  works 
printed  at  Jene,  to  his  work  De  cap  Babylonica.  Why  has  not 
the  Preacher  proved  our  reference  false  ?     He  cannot. 

The  Preacher  asserted  we  "  misquoted  honest  John  Wesley," 
see  his  letter  No.  3.  He  was  referred  to  honest  John's  works, 
5th  vol.  printed  by  the  Hai-pers  in  New  York,  year  1826.  Why 
has  not  the  Preacher  proved  our  reference  false  ?     He  cannot. 

The  Preacher  insulted  tradition  by  "treating  it  with  the  same 
respect  as  the  koran  of  Mahommed!"  see  his  letter  No.  1.  Yet 
he  used  tradition,  and  in  hostilit)^  to  the  principles  of  his  Rule  of 
Faith,  to  prove  the  Bible  to  be  the  Word  of  God?  Is  this  incon- 
sistency?    Why  will  not  the  Preacher  answer? 

The  Preacher's  expressed  condition  to  admit  the  authority  of 
the  Fathers  was  founded  on  the  production  of  a  "  genui?ie  copy." 
see  his  letter  No.  1.  Yet,  in  the  absence  of  this  genuine  copy,  the 
authority  of  the  fathers  has  been  used  by  him  to  assist  his  views ! 
Is  this  inconsistency!     Why  will  not  the  Preacher  answer? 

The  Preacher  asserted  while  laboring  to  paliate  the  inconsisten- 
cy incurred  by  quoting  the  Fathers  as  "  expositors  of  truth,"  that 
the  "  knavish  monks,  who  corrupted  many  parts  of  them,  did  not 
succeed  in  corrupting  all  of  them,  or  all  parts  of  each  of  them," 
see  his  letter  No.  8.  He  was  asked  "  by  what  critical  canon  were 
the  corrupted  segregated  from  the  genuine  passages  in  the  works 
of  the  fathers."    Why  does  the  Preacher's  interior  spirit  mono- 


262 

polize  this  important  secret  ?    Why  will  he  not  answer  ?     Is  not 
this  a  serious  deficiency  ? 

The  Preacher  endeavored  to  prove  the  abrogation  of  the  Jewish 
Sabbath  from  Scripture,  see  his  letter  No.  7.  His  inferences 
were  shown  to  be  false.  Why  has  he  not  refuted  our  arguments  T 
He  ca7i7iot.     Is  not  this — deficiency  1 

The  Preacher  essayed  to  prove  the  Bible  to  be  the  Word  of  God, 
see  his  letter  No.  5.  His  proof  consisted  of  a  series  of  assertions, 
no  form  of  argument.  His  assertions  were  exhibited  by  us  in 
the  form  of  sixteen  propositions,  see  our  letter  No.  5.  One  of  those 
propositions  has  not  yet  been  proved!  Why  not?  Is  not  this  a 
serious  deficiency  ? 

The  Preacher  in  his  vain  efforts  to  prove  the  Bible  to  be  the 
word  of  God  asserted, — see  his  letter  No.  6,  that  "  he  knew  the  Bi- 
ble to  be  the  word  of  God  from  the  external  evidence  of  miracles 
wrought  by  the  inspired  Writers,  and  which  were  continued  down 
to  the  time  of  St.  Austin,  who  saw  some  wrought?"  He  was  asked 
who  was  the  inspired  writer  living  and  performing  miracles  down 
to  the  time  of  St.  Austin?  Why  does  he  not  answer?  Is  not  this 
a  deficiency  in  establishing  his  assertions  ? 

The  Preacher  in  his  letter  No.  8,  thus  writes,  "  again  this  mon- 
strous doctrine  of  the  Mass,  I  can  produce  seventeen  of  your  early 
and  best  fathers,  from  Ireneus  to  St.  Augustine.  It  bega?i  about 
the  middle  of  the  fifth  century,"  &c.  Ireneus  lived  in  the  seco7id 
century ;  the  Mass,  writes  the  Erudite  in  the  Hebrew  and  Greek 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  began  about  the  Middle  of  the  fifth.  How, 
then,  could  Ireneus  be  "  againsC^  the  Mass  which  had  no  existence 
during  his  life  ?  Will  the  Preacher  solve  this  riddle  ?  It  is  a  fe- 
licitous illustration  of  his  '^  squi?iti?ig"  vision. 

The  Preacher  has  reaped  the  fruit  of  his  irreligious  invective 
against  the  Blessed  Virgin,  see  our  letter  No.  8.  The  meed  of 
merit  has  been  conferred ;  he  has  been  convicted  of  Nestorian- 
ism.  To  his  title  of  Preacher  in  the  Middle  Dutch  Church,  he 
says  now  append,  professor  of  Nestorian  heresy  to  the  "  virtuous 
ladies." 

Having  registered  a  few — not  all — of  your  inconsistencies, 
contradictions,  and  deficiencies,  Rev.  Preacher;  having  placed  you 
on  an  eminence  from  which  you  cannot  descend  without  peril, — 
having  watched  over  the  progress  of  your  four  months*  toil,  your 
nine  letters,  including  the  mighty  last  of  deathless  renown, — a 
production  on  which  you  may  inscribe  the  words  of  Horace, — 
*'exegi  MONUMENTUM  sere  perennius," — we  proceed  to  your  Judge 
of  Controversies. 

From  the  Scriptures  themselves  it  is  not  difficult  to  prove  that 
they  cannot  be  the  Judge  of  Controversy.  Common  sense  tells 
us,  we  must  distinguish  between  the  letter  of  the  Scriptures,  and 


2G'3 

the  sense  of  the  Scriptures.  St.  Paul,  i^  Cor.  iii.  (>,  marks  this  dis- 
tinction. "  The  letter,"  says  the  Apostle,  "killeth,  but  the  Spirit 
quickeneth,"  as  though  he  had  said,  if  you  follow  the  true  meaning 
and  sense  of  Scripture,  which  is  its  soul  and  spirit,  it  will  help  you 
to  salvation;  but  if  you  negle(^.t  the  true  meaning  and  adhere  only 
to  the  letter,  and  strive  to  make  that  the  meaning,  which  the  bare 
letter  seems  to  import,  you  will  fall  certainly  into  error.  That 
St.  Austin  understood  the  Apostle  to  have  spoken  in  this  sense,  we 
know  from  Ser.  7  dc  Temp.  "  Dearly  beloved,"  says  he,  "  I  have 
often  admonished  you  in  charity,  that,  in  the  lessons  which  on 
these  days  are  read  in  the  Church,  we  ought  not  to  attend  only  to 
that  whicii  w^e  are  taught  by  the  bare  letter,  but  that  we  must 
seek  faitJifully  (by  taking  away  the  veil  of  the  letter)  a  true  quick- 
ening spirit,  for  the  Apostle  says,  'the  letter  killeth  but  the  Spirit 
quickeneth.'  "  Now%  Rev.  Sir,  we  say,  that  the  Scriptures,  if  we 
regard  the  bare  letter,  cannot  possibly  be  the  Judge  of  Controver- 
sies. We  also  say,  the  Scriptures  even  if  we  regard  its  meaning, 
cannot  be  the  Judge  of  Controversy ;  and  we  call  on  the  Christian 
public  to  mark  our  proofs  of  these  assertions,  and  the  delusion 
you  labor  under,  in  holding  the  Scrii)tures  to  be  "  your  only  Rule 
of  Faith,  and  Judge  of  Controversy."  That  the  Scriptures  can- 
not be  oui  Judge  of  Controversy,  if  we  regard  the  bare  letter  is 
thus  proved.  That  which  leads  men  into  heresy  and  error  cannot 
be  the  infallible  Judge  of  all  Controversies  ;  but  the  Scriptures,  if 
we  respect  its  bare  letter,  leads  men  into  error  and  heresy,  there- 
fore, it  cannot  be  the  infallible  Judge  of  Controversies.  Tlie  ma- 
jor propositions  of  this  syllogism  is  self-evident.  The  minor  is 
proved  by  the  words  of  St.  Paul  "the  letter  killeth,"  as  much  as  to 
say  it  leadcth  us  into  error. 

The  letter  of  the  Scriptures  killed  the  Jews,  who  understood  all 
the  things  that  were  foretold  of  Christ,  according  to  the  hare  letter 
and  did  not  understand  its  spirit.  St.  Paul,  2  Cor.  iii.  15.  says  of 
them  "for  even  unto  this  day  where  Moses  is  read,  a  veil  is  upon 
their  hearts'?"  that  is,  the  Jews  do  not  understand  Moses,  whom 
they  read  daily,  for  they  do  not  acknowledge  Christ,  who  is  hid- 
den in  Moses  from  their  sight,  under  the  external  ceremonies  and 
sacrifices,  as  under  a  veil,  for  even  yet  they  adhere  to  the  veil,  not 
considering  what  is  hid  under  it. 

The  letter  of  the  Scriptures  kills  not  only  the  Jews,  but  also  the 
heretics.  The  Sabellians  held  that  there  were  not  three  divine 
persons  in  the  blessed  Trinity,  but  only  one.  They  called  the  same 
person  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  but  in  a  di  fie  rent  sense. 
The  Father,  because  he  was  the  creator  of  all  things; — the  Son, 
because  he  assumed  human  nature; — the  Holy  Ghost,  because  he 
sanctified  us.  From  this  opinion  it  necessarily  followed,  that  God 
tiie  Father  died  and  «uflcred— for  this   they  were  called  by  St, 


^64 

Augustine,  Lib.  de  Hceres  cap.  41,  Patropassians.  But  how  did 
they  fall  into  this  error  ?  Because  they  understood,  according  to 
the  letter,  the  words  of  St.  John,  10.  c.  30.  v.  '*  I  and  the  Father 
are  one,"  and  inferred  that  Christ  and  his  Father  were  one  in  per- 
son, contrary  to  the  understanding  of  the  Catholic  Church,  which 
says,  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  one  in  nature,  and  two  in  per- 
son. 

The  Arians  said  that  Christ  was  not  God,  but  inferior  to  himi 
How  did  they  fall  into  this  error  ?  They  expounded  the  words 
of  Christ,  according  to  the  bare  letter,  John  24.  v.  28.  "  The  Fa- 
ther is  greater  than  I,"  as  if  he  had  meant,  that  the  Father  is  ab- 
solutely and  in  every  respect  greater  than  he,  being  contrary  to 
the  sense  of  the  Church,  which  is,  that  Christ,  according  to  his 
human  nature  is  less  than  God  the  Father,  but  equal  to  him  ac- 
cording to  his  divine  nature. 

The  Macedonians,  out  of  the  killing  letter  denied  the  Holy 
Ghost  to  be  God,  viz.  from  these  words  of  St.  Paul,  1  Cor.  2.  v. 
10,  "  the  Spirit  searcheth  all  things,  yea  even  the  deep  thoughts 
of  God."  They  thus  argued,  '•  He  that  searcheth  seeketh ;  he 
that  seeketh  doubteth ;  he  that  doubteth  is  ignorant;  he  that  is 
ignorant  is  not  God ;  therefore  the  Holy  Ghost  is  not  God."  The 
meaning  of  the  words  in  the  Catholic  sense  is,  "  the  Spirit  search- 
eth all  things,"  that  is,  the  Spirit  comprehends  all  things,  knows 
all  things.  In  this  sense,  the  Father  is  said  to  search  all  things. 
«  God  doth  search  the  hearts  of  all."  1  Parral.  28.  v.  9.  "  God 
searcheth  the  hearts  and  reins."  Psalm.  7. 10.  "I,  the  Lord,  search- 
ing hearts."  Jer.  xvii.  10. 

The  Manicheans  affirmed  that  the  Old  Testament  was  contra- 
ry to  the  New,  because  they  adhered  to  the  outward  letter.  The 
Old  Testament  says.  Genesis  1,  "God  created  all  things."  The 
New  Testament  says,  John  1,  "the  Word  created  all  things." 
Again,  the  Old  Testament  says.  Genesis  i.  27.  "  God  made  man 
according  to  his  own  image."  The  New  Testament  says,  John  viii. 
V.  44.  "  Man  is  of  the  devil." 

The  Pelagians  denied  Original  sin,  and  affirmed  that  the  sin  of 
Adam  could  hurt  only  himself  How  did  they  fall  into  this  here- 
sy 1  By  adhering  to  the  "letter  that  killeth."  They  read  in  Eze- 
kiel,  18  c.  20  v.  "  that  the  child  shall  not  carry  the  iniquity  of  his 
father,"  Some  ancient  heretics  denied  the  resurrection  of  the 
flesh,  because  they  found  it  written,  John  vi.  63,  "  it  is  the  Spirit 
that  quickeneth,  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing ;"  and  Doctor  Brown- 
lee  adduces  the  same  text  against  another  Catholic  tenet,  the  real 
presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist ;  but  the  Doctor  and  his  com- 
peers are  deceived  by  the  "  letter  which  killeth."  In  order  to 
wean  the  Doctor  from  adherence  to  the  bare  letter  of  this  text, 
we  shall  merely  ask  his  interior  spirit,  the  following  questions.  If 


265 

the  "  flesh  profit  nothing,"  why  did  Christ  take  flesh  to  redeem 
man?  Why  was  the  Word  made  flesh?  Why  did  Christ  sufl^er 
in  the  flesh  on  tlie  Cross?  Did  he  do  this  to  no  purpose?  The 
Doctor  it  is  hoped,  will  pardon  this  httle  digression,  we  have  been 
led  to  it  b}'  a  wish  to  bring  him  to  a  right  understanding.  Enough 
has  been  said  to  prove  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  cannot  be  our 
Judge  of  Controversies,  if  we  rei^ard  the  mere  letter;  we  shall, 
theretbrc,  hasten  to  show  the  "Christian  public"  that  they  can- 
not be  our  Judge  of  Controversy,  even  if  their  meaning  be  con- 
sidered. 

The  Scriptures  are  often  obscure,  and  hard  to  be  understood. 
Out  of  this  obscurity  many  controversies  arise  as  to  their  true 
meaning.  There  must  be  some  judge  to  determine  their  true 
meaning.  But  common  sense  tells  us,  this  judge  must  be  distinct 
from  the  Scriptures,  for  the  Scripture  itself,  which  is  obscure, 
:annot  determine  its  own  meaning.  To  deny  that  the  Scriptures 
are  obscure  and  hard  to  be  understood,  would.  Rev.  Sir,  "argue 
a  derangement  in  the  moral  faculty;"  in  truth,  it  would  argue 
•nore,  it  would  savor  of  infidelity.  It  would  certainly  be  unscrip- 
tural,  after  Saint  Peter  telling  us,  that  in  the  epistles  of  Saint 
Paul  there  were  "  many  things  hard  to  be  understood."  Now, 
Rev.  Doctor,  we  humbly  submit,  that,  whatever  is  "hard  to  be 
understood"  is  obscure.  Allow  us  to  assign  the  causes  of  the  ob- 
scurity of  the  Scriptures.  This  w^e  are  desirous  to  do,  in  order 
to  let  the  "  Christian  public"  see  the  wide  difl!erence  there  is  be- 
tween the  lessons  we  have  been  taught  and  your  "  Protestant  les- 
son and  logic."  The  Scriptures  are  obscure  for  two  reasons. 
The  things  treated  of  in  the  Scriptures  and  the  manner  of  treating 
them,  render  the  Scriptures  obscure.  The  Scripture  treats  of  his- 
tories. Prophesies,  Mysteries,  and  moral  precepts.  There  is  great 
obscurity  in  the  Prophesies  and  mysteries.  These  are  above 
man's  capacity  and  understanding.  We  can  perceive  them,  but 
alter  a  dark  manner,  as  St.  Paul  says,  1  Cor.  xiii.  12.  The  manner 
in  which  these  things  are  treated  of  in  the  Scripture  is  obscure. 
Are  not  the  Scriptures  full  of  figures,  allegories,  and  parallels, 
which  cover  many  things  which  the  reader  cannot  immediately 
see?  Is  not  the  same  word  often  used  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  in 
ditferent  senses  ?  He  who  is  not  ignorant  of  the  philosophy  of 
human  language,  will  admit,  that  this  circumstance  alone,  must 
heighten  its  obscurity.  In  the  4th  chap,  of  St.  John,  13,  w^e  read, 
"  every  one  that  drinketh  of  this  water  shall  thirst  again,  but  he 
that  shall  drink  of  the  water  that  I  shall  give  him,  shall  not  thirst 
for  ever"  Here  we  find  that  to  "drink  of  water  and  to  thirst," 
are  taken  literally  in  the  former  part  of  the  sentence,  Sindjigurative' 
ly  in  the  latter.  Again,  in  the  very  same  chapter,  v.  35,  we  read, 
"do  not  you  say,  that  yet  there  are  four  months,  and  harvest 
34 


266 

Cometh  1  Behold,  I  say  to  you,  lift  your  eyes,  and  see  the  coun- 
tries that  they  are  white  already  to  harvest."  In  this  sentence, 
the  word  harvest  is  taken  in  its  proper  signification  in  the  first 
place,  but  in  the  latter,  figuratively.  In  St.  Paul,  2  Cor,  v.  21,  we 
read,  "  Him  who  new  no  sin,  for  us,  he  hath  made  sin."  Sin,  in 
one  place,  is  taken  properly,  but,  in  the  other  place,  figuratively, 
that  is,  in  sacrifice  oflTered  for  sin. 

We  discover  figures,  not  only  in  the  language  of  the  Scriptures, 
but  in  the  very  things  themselves,  which  are  treated  of — the  Pas- 
chal Lamb  was  a  figure  of  Christ — the  Red  Sea  of  Baptism ; 
Manna  was  a  figure  of  the  Eucharist,  and  Mount  Sion  of  the 
Church.  This,  Rev.  Sir,  causes  great  obscurity  in  the  Scriptures. 
First,  the  reader  does  not  immediately  see  what  it  is  that  the 
ficrure  represents.  For  example,  that  the  four  beasts  represent 
four  kingdoms  and  empires.  Jer.  xix.  10;  that  the  Ram  repre- 
sents the  King  of  the  Medes  and  Persians,  and  the  Goat  the  King 
of  the  Grecians.  Danl.  vii.  v.  3.  ibid.  viii.  v.  20.  These  and  ma- 
ny others  are  with  difficulty  understood  by  the  generality  of 
readers. 

In  the  Scriptures  one  thing  is  often  a  figure  of  things,  which 
are  contrary  and  repugnant,  one  to  another.  The  deluge  was 
both  the  figure  of  the  baptism  of  the  faithful,  and  of  the  punishment 
of  the  unfaithful;  and  the  rock,  which  is  Christ,  was  the  Stone  of 
Scandal  and  oflfence  to  those  that  perish,  and  to  those  who  believe 
the  Corner  Stone. 

You  will  acknowledge,  that  there  are  in  the  Scriptures  many 
apparent  contradictions,  which  must  create  great  difficulty  in  the 
inind  of  the  reader.  Another  great  cause  of  the  obscurity  of  the 
Scriptures  is  this,  that  a  transition  is  often  suddenly  made,  from 
the  literal  sense  to  the  mystical, — from  carnal  things  to  spiritual, — 
from  temporal  to  eternal, — from  the  kings  of  Israel  to  Christ,  and 
conversely.  This  you  will  find  exemplified  in  the  Psalms  and  in 
the  7th  chapter  of  Isaias,  where,  from  the  history  of  two  kings,  a 
sudden  transition  is  made  to  the  B.  Virgin.  In  the  14th  chapter, 
the  Prophet  passes  from  the  king  of  Babylon  to  Lucifer.  In  the 
71st  Psalm,  the  Psalmist  passes  from  Solomon  to  Christ.  In  the 
6th  chap,  of  St.  John  the  Evangelist,  he  passes  from  the  barley 
loaves  to  the  Eucharistic  or  Sacramental  bread.  In  the  histories 
of  Scripture,  things  are  not  set  down  in  the  order  of  their  happen- 
ing ;  nor  is  their  chronology  very  clear.  Now,  Rev.  Sir,  we  have 
assigned  a  few  of  our  reasons  for  thinking  the  Bible  to  be  a  very 
obscure  book,  a  book  hard  to  be  understood :  and  we  appeal  to 
history,  to  the  differences  that  exist  on  the  most  vital  points  of 
reUgion  among  the  different  Protestant  sects,  to  prove  that  those 
differences,  about  the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures,  grow  out  of  the 
obscurity  of  the  Bible   itselfl    Since  the  Bible,  then,  is  obscure, 


267 

how  can  it  be  the  Judge  of  the  controversies  that  arise  out  of  this 
obscurity  ?  When  there  is  question  of  its  own  meaning,  how  can 
it  possibly  decide  ?  Common  sense  tells  us,  that  a  judge,  wliose 
decisions  arc  so  obscure  as  to  leave  room  for  controversy,  is  ex- 
tremely unht  for  liis  oilicc.  We  are  convinced  that  sucii  a  judge 
w^^uld  never  be  appointed  or  sanctioned  by  our  Divine  and  All- 
wise  Legislator.  Will  you  have  the  goodness  to  tell  uswhattlie 
Scriptures  have  decided  against  Calvin,  who  informed  his  disci- 
j)les  that  Christ  spoke  in  jest,  when  he  said,  "If  thou  wilt  enter 
into  life,  keep  the  commandments."  What  have  they  decided 
against  CEolampadius,  who  interpreted  the  words  of  John  xx.  26, 
*'  Jesus  came,  the  doors  being  shut,  and  stood  in  the  midst  of  them,'* 
thus,  "whilst  the  doors  were  shut,  Christ  crept  in  through  the 
window." 

Our  next  argument  to  prove  that  the  Scriptures  are  not  the 
Judge  of  Controversy  w^e  reserve  for  another  letter;  as  our  object 
is  to  teach  the  Preacher  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church  his  Cate- 
chism, WG  beg  leave  to  call  his  attention  to  the  following  lesson, 
which  our  Catholic  httle  children  are  taught,  lor  the  purpose  of 
keeping  them  in  the  "  unity  of  the  Spirit,  and  in  the  bond  of 
peace." 

Q.  Is  not  Scripture  a  sufficient  Rule  of  Faith? 

A.  No ;  it  is  not,  without  a  Catholic  interpreter. 

Q.  Where  shall  we  find  this  interpreter? 

A.  In  the  Pastors  that  govern  the  Holy  Catholic  Church,  the 
Apostles'  successors,  from  whom  we  received  the  Scriptures 
themselves. 

Q.  Can  plain  Scripture  deceive  any  man?  Is  it  not  at  least  a 
Rule  of  Faith  when  it  is  plain  ? 

A.  Doubtless  it  is ;  but  it  is  not  always  plain  when  it  is  pretend- 
ed to  be  plain ;  and  where  it  is  plain  it  is  not  always  followed  by 
those  who  pretend  to  make  it  their  rule. 

Q.  Is  not  Scripture  the  pure  word  of  God  ?  What  need  of  any 
other  guide  ?     Men  may  deceive  us,  but  the  word^of  God  cannot? 

A.  The  Scripture  is  the  word  of  God;  but  heretics  do  not  fol- 
low it  in  the  controverted  points,  until  they  have,  by  their  private 
interpretation,  made  it  their  own  word. 

Q.  Do  not  at  least  Protestants,  profess  to  build  their  faith  on 
Scripture, and  not  on  any  thing  else? 

A.  They  do,  indeed,  all  profess  much;  but  none  of  them  in  fact 
build  upon  it.  Do  not  all  the  sects  in  Christendom  appeal  to  plain 
Scripture,  even  while  they  dissent  from  one  another?  The  Lu- 
therans, the  Calvinists,  the  Zuinglians,  the  Socinians,  the  Anabap- 
tists, the  Independents,  all  pretend  to  build  their  contradictory 
tenets  upon  Scripture.  Yet  faith  tells  us  as  well  as  reason,  that 
their  differences  and  contradictory  systems  of  opinion  and  doc- 


268 

trine  are  not  in  the  Scriptures,  but  in  the  mistaken  understandings 
of  those  who  undertake  to  be  their  own  interpreters. 

Q.  What  do  you  mean  by  private  judgment? 

A.  To  be  guided  by  one's  own  sense  in  the  interpretation  of 
Scripture. 

Q.  Why  may  not  every  one  be  allowed  to  follow  the  Scrip- 
ture according  to  the  best  of  his  judgment  in  matters  of  faith? 

A.  It  is  a  most  pernicious  maxim ;  it  destroys  all  obedience  to 
the  church,  which  w^e  are  commanded  to  hear;  besides  it  is  the 
parent  of  many  evils. 

Q.  What  are  those  evils? 

A.  Innumerable  sects.  No  heresy  but  what  took  its  beginning 
from  it. 

Q.  Why  may  not  I  be  allowed  to  follow  my  teacher,  or  the 
congregation  or  national  Church  I  belong  to  ? 

A.  No  National  Church,  no  private  congregation  or  Teacher, 
dissenting  from  the  Universal  or  Catholic  Church  can  be  a  safe 
guide  to  their  followers :  all  Sectarists  and  Heretics  follow  such 
guides. 

Q.  Why  may  we  not  at  least  follow  the  instmct  of  the  Spirit  ? 
The  Spirit  of  God  cannot  deceive  us. 

A.  Very  true,  the  Spirit  of  God  cannot  deceive  you,  but  you 
may  be  deceived  by  those  who  tell  you  that  you  follow  the  instinct 
of  the  Spirit  of  God,  when  you  do  not. 

Such,  Sir,  are  the  answ^ers  that  you  and  every  Biblomastix  will 
receive  from  our  poor  children,  and  we  defy  you,  with  all  your 
"  Protestant  lesson  and  logic," — nay,  with  all  the  "  Hebrew  and 
Greek"  you  have  ever  learned,  even  the  gr^ca  majora,  to  refute 
them. 

We  have  shown  you  that  your  Rule  of  Faith  and  Judge  of  Con- 
troversy has  been  that  of  all  the  heretics  and  heresiarch  of  the 
world,  that  Christianity  has  been  libelled  by  it,  and  that  it  directly 
leads  to  infidelity,  inasmuch  as  it  involves  the  rejection  of  the  Ca- 
nonical books.  The  Scripture  is  your  only  Rule  of  Faith.  There- 
fore, you  can  believe  only  that  for  which  you  have  Scripture;  but 
you  have  no  Scripture  for  the  caiionity  of  the  Scriptures ;  there- 
fore, you  cannot  believe  the  Scriptures  to  be  canonical :  there- 
fore your  Rule  of  Faith  leads  to  doimright  Deism. 

This,  Rev.  Sir,  is  a  "  more  fatal  result,"  and  demonstrates  a 
greater  departure  from  the  true  Rule  of  Faith  established  by  the 
Redeemer,  than  any  thing  that  can  well  be  imagined.  Do  you  real- 
ly think,  that  any  man  of  education  could  help  pitying  you,  were  he 
to  hear  you  establishing  your  oiily  Rule  of  Faith  and  Judge  of 
Controversy,  by  vulgar  ribaldry  and  scurrility.  Let,  even  your 
''virtuous  ladies"  compare  your  last  letter  with  the  answers  of  the 
Catholic  boy  on  the  Rule  of  Faith,  and  they  will  be  ashamed  of 


269 

you.  Were  we  to  say  that  the  Protestant  Religion  is  1500  years 
later  than  Christianity,  and  that  it  is  a  fatal  departure  from  the 
true  faith,  because  we  find  a  man  of  extensive  erudition.  Dr.  Adam 
Clarke,  recording;  his  belief  in  a  medern  miracle,  what  would  the 
public  think  of  us?  Now,  Sir,  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  with  the  Holy 
Scriptures  as  his  Rule  of  Faith,  gives  the  following-account  of  the 
mIraculols  growth  of  a  woman's  hair.  "  JMargaret  Home,  an  in- 
habitant of  St.  Peter  du  Port,  in  the  Isle  of  Guernsey,  came  to  me 
to  Les  Torres,  in  June  1787,  to  be  electrified,  hoping  it  would 
cure  her  of  a  settled  deafness,  by  which  she  had  been  long  afflict- 
ed. I  gave  her  a  few^  shocks,  through  the  head  and  ear,  one  Sa- 
turday evening,  abou!  the  end  of  June.  Having  combed  out  her 
gre}^  hair,  and,  according  to  her  custom,  tied  it  on  the  top  of  lier 
head,  (which  it  would  barely  do,  ])eing  very  short)  she  went  to 
bed,  and  the  next  moining  was  astonished  to  find  on  taking  off  her 
cap,  that  her  hair  had  in  the  night  increased  eight  or  ten  inches 
in  lenii^th.  She  immediately  called  Mrs.  Johnson,  in  whose  house 
she  lodged,  who,  viewing  it,  was  equally  astonished,  being  per- 
fectly acquainted  wqth  its  former  shortness.  This  miracnlous  loch 
(for  so  I  must  term  it)  is  of  a  color  diflerent  irom  the  rest  of  the 
hair.  The  circumstances  as  above,  I  have  taken  from  the  con- 
joint testimony  of  Mrs.  Home  and  Mrs.  Johnson,  who  are  both 
members  of  one  Society  in  St.  Peter's,  and  who  walk  in  the  light 
love,  and  lihertij  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ!"  What  think  you,  Rev. 
Doctor,  of  the  faith  of  Mrs.  Home  and  Mrs.  Johnson,  and  of  the 
great  Doctor  Adam  Clarke,  with  their  only  Rule,  the  Bible? 
Whoever  takes  the  trouble  of  turning  over  the  religious  juiblica- 
tions  of  Protestants  and  Dissenters  will  find  some  hundred  mira- 
cles recorded  not  less  wonderful  than  this;  yet  these  are  people 
who  laugh  at  Catholic  credulity.  Wlio  has  not  heard  of  the  fa- 
mous Mary  Toft,  who  brought  forth  rabbits,  and  of  Joanna  Scuth- 
cote,  ^vho  raised  the  dead  to  life ;  w^hose  pregnancy  was  proved  by 
Doctor  Reece,  whose  votaries,  amounting  to  many  thousands, 
vouched  she  was  pregnant  with  the  Messiah?  Who  has  not 
heard  of  Henry  Lee,  a  follower  of  t!iis  mad  w^oman,who  killed  a 
child  in  the  act  of  circumcising  it  ?  (See  Ti'm<?.s,  Sep.  10,  1824.) 
The  memory  of  such  things  should  chastise  the  superlative  indis- 
cretion of  the  Preacher  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church.  In  the  time 
of  Mary,  Protestants  had  their  "  voice  in  the  wall.''  Doctor 
Maxwell,  Bishop  of  Kilmore,  describes  the  Ghosts  of  Protestants 
drowned  at  Portatown  bridge,  "  as  sometimes  having  been  seen 
by  day  and  by  night,  walking  on  the  river  brandishing  tlieir  naked 
swords;  sometimes  singing  Psalms  and  at  other  times  shrieking 
in  a  most  hideous  and  fearful  manner."  Strange,  Rev.  Sir,  that 
such  things  could  be  believed  in  the  full  light  of  the  Gospel  and 
under  the  influence  of  your  only  Rule  of  Faith.     All  we  shall  say 


^70 

in  conclusion  is,  that,  such  things,  as  well  as  your  Rule  of  Faith, 

HAVE  ORIGINATED  IN  SHEER  FANATICISM,  AND    HAVE    BEEN    SUSTAINED 

BY  IMPOSTURE.  We  are,  yours,  &c. 

JOHN  POWER. 
THOMAS  LEVINS. 
June  11,  1833. 


I^t\  MSroumlcc^s  JLeticr,  JVo^  10. 
TO  DRS.  POWER,  VARELA,  &  MR.  LEVINS. 

"Tria  faciunt  bonum.  &c.  Three  things  make  a  good  monk  and  nun;  to  speak  well  of  the 
Superior;  to  read  the  Breviary  as  much  and  as  often  as  thev  choose;  and  to  let  things  go  on 
just  as  they  please." — "There  shall  come  in  the  last  days  scoffers,  walking  after  their  own 
lusts."— -S<.  Peler. 

Gentlemen, — By  the  detail  of  extracts,  in  my  last  letter,  I  esta- 
blished the  fact,  that  your  peculiar  ceremonies  are  based  in  unpa- 
ralleled fanaticism  :  and  that  your  whole  system  was  founded  by 
some  of  the  wildest  fanatics,  the  world  ever  saw.  These  extracts 
I  copied  from  your  own  standard  works,  such  as  Acta  Sanctorum^ 
Butler's  Lives,  &c.  You  have  not  denied  the  truth  of  one  of 
these  extracts;  and  you  cannot.  I  invite  you  to  try  your  logic 
at  a  refutation  of  them.  It  was  supremely  silly,  gentlemen,  to 
pass  the  whole  over,  as  you  did  in  your  last  letter,  with  this  Jesu- 
istical  question:  "Do  you  imagine  Catholics  will  admit  your  ma- 
lignant fictions,  while  they  mock  and  reject  the  dreamy  legends  of 
the  visionary  among  their  ow?isillt^mciler$r^  Bravo!  Hear  him,Bishop 
Dubois,  Pope  Gregory  16lh,  your  Priests  call  your  Acta  Sanctorum, 
your  "deeds  of  the  Saints,"  dreamy  legends,  and  yoiu'  Popes  and  va- 
riousorders  of  monks,  ''silly  and  visionary  iiritersr  He  hasdenounced 
the  whole  evidence  on  which  his  holiness  proceeds,  when  he  ca- 
nonizes and  adds  a  new  god  to  the  host  of  idols!  You  must  give 
up  to  me,  my  opponents, — they  are  coming  over  to  my  side:  you 
mightily  encourage  me  to  go  on.  Even  Mr.  Levins,  if  I  may 
judge  from  his  weekly  peregrinations,  and  Five  Point  labours,  will 
soon  be  illumined !  I  despair  not :  for,  verily  as  "Balaam's  ass 
did  speak  after  being  well  cudgelled,"  why  may  not  Mr.  Levins 
have  even  his  mouth  opened  to, — by  a  logical  flagellation  ! 

You  repeat  your  slanders  of  Luther,  "the  Great  and  the  Good.'* 
I  have  only  room  for  tivo  remarks  here.  Every  scholar  knows 
that  Luther,  when  more  illumined  from  monkish  ignorance,  did 
admit  the  epistle  of  St.  James  into  the  canon.  It  stands  in  Lu- 
ther's German  Bible,  and  if  you  will  consult  Woolfii  Curae,  Philol. 
vol.  v.  6.,  and  also  Fabricius  Biblioth.  Graec.  Lib.  iv.  cap.  5. 
sec.  9,  even  you  can  see  and  feel  the  evidence  of  your  convicted 


271 

slander  about  Luther's  rejecting  the  epistle  of  James.  My  other 
remark  is  this  -.—Gentlemen,  look  nearer  home.  The  Roman 
Church,  in  the  4th  century,  denied  the  canonicity  of  the  Kpistle  to 
the  Hebreics  !  St.  Jerome  tells  you  this.  See  his  Treat,  of  Illus- 
trious Men,  cap.  59,  and  his  Episile  53  to  Paulinus.  The  Greek 
Church  first  adopted  the  full  canon  :  the  Roman  Church  stood  out 
long  against *nhc  Hebrews:"  but  she  was  fmally  ''cudgelled"  by 
the  Greek  Church  into  orthodoxy,  on  the  canon,  so  far  as  it  re- 
spects "the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  !" 

You  say  a  good  deal  in  your  last  about  "the  stake;"  and  "my 
coming  voluntarily  up  to  your  stake."  ]  know  that  your  spirit 
leads  always  that  way.  And  even  to-morrow,  had  your  bloody 
sect  the  ascendency,  you  would  plant  the  stakes,  and  light  up  the 
Smithfield  fires  in  our  Park!  I  know  it,  and  you  know  it;  and 
even  now  anticipate  it !  But  may  God  in  his  rich  mercy,  preserve 
the  Lord's  Church,  and  our  happy  Republic,  from  the  bloody 
Jesuits !  Amen. 

Your  view  of  my  nine  letters  is  edifying  :  it  shows  how  deeply 
you  feel  under  the  lash ;  and  how  utterly  unfit  you  are  to  answer 
soberly  one  of  my  arguments.  You  do  not  advance  one  idea, — 
or  one  objection,  which  has  not  been  fully  refuted,  over  and  over 
again.     See  my  6th  and  7th  Letters. 

The  rest  of  your  Letter  is  filled  w^ith  a  fresh  ebulition  of  cha- 
racteristic extravagance  against  the  Holy  Bible,  copied  out  of 
your  old,  convenient  Mumford  and  Milner  ;  together  with  the  poi- 
sonous morsel  from  the  infidel  catechism,  whh  which  the  Jesuits 
pollute  the  tender  minds  of  the  Catholic  children.  May  Jesus 
Christ  preserve  these  children  from  such  soul-murdering  doc- 
trines, as  are  instilled  into  their  minds  by  their  "spiritual  teachers," 
and  infidel  catechisms! 

I  had  thought  you  had  reached  the  depth  of  deism  and  blasphe- 
my. But  1  see  that  "in  the  lowest  depth,"  there  is  a  "lower  deep 
still  opening"  under  you.  In  Tr.  Tell.  p.  191,  col.  1,  you  affirm 
that  "the  Protestant  Rule  and  Judge  of  Controversy,"  namely, 
the  Bible  and  the  Holy  Ghost  speaking  to  us  in  it,  have  been  the 
Rule  and  Judge  of  Heretics  and  Heresiarchs:  "that  the  Rule  and 
Judge,"  namely,  the  Bible  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  "have  libelled 
Christianity;"  and  "do  lead" — that  is  to  say,  the  Bible  and  the 
Holy  Spirit,  "lead  to  downright  Deism  !"  U  there  be  "a  lower 
deep"  than  this,  then  do  I  know  nothing  of  human  wickedness,  and 
anti-christian  depravity  ! 

Your  "Adam  (Clarke's"  tale  of  "a  miraculous  growth  of  hair, ^^  you 
propose  as  an  offset  to  my  detail  of  your  "accredited  miracles." 
This  is  supremely  ludicrous;  and  shows  how  much  you  are  stun- 
ned and  utterly  confounded  by  the  exposure  of  your  Roman  fana- 
ticism.    I  quoted  a  sample  of  your  miracles,  believed,  and  taught 


272 

by  your  own  Popes,  and  duly  entered  at  the  "Office  of  Miracles  at 
Rome"  by  your  knavish  compeers.  You  reply  to  this  proof  of 
your  incurable  fanaticism  by  a  hull  and  frog  story  from  "Adam 
Clarke,"  about  a  natural  phenomenon,  a  wonderful  grozof/i  of  a 
woman's  hair!     Oh!  he  !  jam  satis. 

You  quote  the  cases  of  Toft  and  Joanna  Soiithcoie.  Is  it  not 
marvellous  that  you  should  not  know  that  these  eminent  fanatics 
borrowed  their  system  from  your  own  Taulerus  aiud  Cressy  I  But 
here  is  the  point  you  forget  to  notice.  When  fanatics  spring  up 
among  Protestants,  we  cast  them  out  and  disown  them.  But 
when  they  appear  in  "Holy  Mother,"  she  sings  hosannahs  to 
them,  and  adores  them  ! 

Now,  Gentlemen,  I  go  on  to  other  points.  You  are  pleased  to 
repeat  in  almost  every  Letter,  that  I  do  not  adhere  to  the  subject 
of  discussion — "/Ae  Rule:''  that  all  I  say  is  foreign  to  the  subject, 
'Hhe  Rale:"  thai  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  ''the  Rule:"  that  ''the 
Rule"  has  been  abandoned,  forsaken,  and  lost !  Now,  this  can  be 
intended  only  to  amuse,  and  absorb  the  attention  of  your  parti- 
sans. If  intended  for  wit,  it  comes  far  short  of  the  irresistible 
sallies  of  Fergus  McAlpin,  who  gravely  tells  the  public  that  Mr. 
T.  C.  Levins's  dialects  and  ribaldry  are  "logic  irresistible  !"  And 
that  the  Priests  are  neither  Deists  nor  blasphemers  in  their 
letters. 

Now,  so  far  is  your  charge  from  being  true,  of  my  having 
abandoned  the  subject,  that  [  have  in  fact  thus  far,  been  fortunate 
enough  to  observe  the  strictest  unity  in  my  discussions.  In  your 
first  note,  you  simply  asked  me  "to  state  our  Rule  of  Faith,  and 
our  Judge  of  Controversy."  I  complied  with  this,  by  stating  that 
our  Rule  of  Faith  is  the  Holy  Scriptures  ;  and  that  the  Judge  of 
Controversy  is  Almighty  God,  speaking  plainly  and  clearly  to  us 
in  them.  I  did  not  stop  here,  although  this  was  all  you  demanded : 
— I  next  brought  forward  the  proof,  that  the  Scriptures  were  the 
only  and  sufficient  Rule :  I  showed  this  from  external  evidence, 
and  inter?ial :  I  showed  it  from  various  passages,  that  God  speak- 
ing to  us  in  the  Bible,  declared  it  his  own  word;  and  pronounced 
it  perfect  and  sufficient.  Psalms  xix.  Isaiah  viii.  20,  Isaiah  Iv.  11, 
Jerem.  xxiii.  28,^29,  2  Tim.  iii.  16,  17,  Rev.  xxii.  18,  19.^  And  it 
is  madness  to  suppose  that  the  divine  Rule  needs  the  paltry  aid  of 
human  additions  !  I  even  continued  to  place  an  abstract  of  this 
proof,  at  the  beginning  of  my  letters,  until  the  public  were  satis- 
fied, and  2J0U  had  not  one  ?iew  idea  more  to  advance  against  the 
Bible  ! 

I  next  endeavored  to  draw  you  out  in  defence  of  your  Rule  ! 
You  carefully  guarded  against  this.  You  know  that  you  cannot 
prove  your  Rule  of  Faith  by  the  present  authority  and  infallibi- 
lity of  your  Church.     And  I  give  you  the  credit  of  a  shrewd  and 


273 

well  conceived  retreat.  But  is  not  your  silence  ominous  ?  Arc 
you  not  betraying  a  consciousness  that  your  clumsy  Rule,  con- 
tained in  some  /{/?//  folios,  is  utterly  untenable,  utterly  indefensible'? 
You  can  never  jn'ovethat  Christ  instituted, by  divine  inspiration, the 
Apocrypha,  and  unwritten  tradition,  and  the  unanimous  consent 
of  the  Fathers.  You  can  never  create  a  paradise  out  of  this  con- 
tinent of  mud!  In  the  midst  of  your  awkward  floundcrings  in 
this  matter,  I  succeeded  in  drawing  you  into  your  "vicious  circle ;" 
and  I  fully  convicted  you  of  your  Roman  sophistry,  by  which 
you  impose  on  your  simple  and  uneducated  partisans.  You  first 
proved  ''Holy  Mother  Church"  from  certain  marks  taken  from 
the  Bible ;  then  you  established  the  inspiration  and  authority  of 
the  Bible  from  your  "Mother  Church !"  But  the  same  sophistry 
and  "vicious  circle"  appear  also  in  your  doctrine  of  tradition-. 
The  word  tradition  signifies  somethi?ig  delivered  by  one  to  another. 
It  is  used,^?-^;,  to  signify  these  doctrines  and  ordinances  which 
the  Apostles  delivered  from  Christ  to  the  Churches.  1  Cor.  xi.  23, 
and  ch.  xv.  3.  SecondUj,  It  is  used  to  express  the  maimer  in  which 
a  thing  is  conveyed  down ;  and  hence,  tradition,  in  this  sense,  is 
either  oral  or  written.  The  doctrines  and  ordinances  are  handed 
dow^n  by  the  wTitten  word  of  God — the  Scriptures.  See  2  Thes. 
ii.  15.  And  these,  we  declare,  contain  all  that  is  necessary,  "to 
make  man  wise  unto  salvation."  You,  on  the  contrary,  maintain, 
that  besides  the  written  word,  there  is  a  body  ol  oral  traditions 
conveying  down  from  Christ  the-  peculiarities  of  Popery :  "and 
this,"  says  the  Council  of  Trent,  "has  been  done  by  an  uninter- 
rupted chain  and  succession." 

You  have  found  it  necessary  to  try  to  prove  tiw  things  here  . 
namely,  that  these  traditions  did  come  from  Christ's  lips ;  and  that 
the  chain  has  been  faithfully  kept  unbroken.  But  no  man  can, 
while  in  his  senses,  believe  without  evidence;  and  no  man  has 
evidence,  unless  he  be  well  acquainted  with  all  the  dead,  and  with 
all  the  living,  who  had  this  chain  of  tradition,  in  their  keeping.  It 
is  entirely  different  from  that  which  is  written  down  in  ten  thou- 
sand copies,  every  w^here  received  and  read.  Those  traditions 
floated  down  on  the  tongue,  by  hearsay  evidence.  Unless  we 
know  the  truth  and  fidelity  of  all  the  dead,  and  of  all  tlic  living, 
wiio  did  and  still  do  hand  them  down,  it  were  an  insult  on  com- 
mon sense,  to  ask  us  to  believe  these  traditions ! ! 

How  do  you  get  over  this  impossibility  ?  Why,  by  plunging 
deeper  and  deeper  into  absurdities.  For  instance,^r5/,  you  resort 
to  the  uxANiMous  coxsENT  of  the  Fathers :  and  lay  down  this  max- 
im, that  what  has  this  unanimous  consent  is  true  tradition  :  what 
has  it  not,  is  to  be  rejected.  Now,  you  load  yourselves  herewith 
a  task,  which,  as  we  show^ed,  no  uninspired  man  can  achieve. 
To  establish  this  uiianimous  consent,  you  must  produce  an  authen- 
No.  18— -35 


274 

ticated  copy  of  the  Fathers,  free  of  all  additions  and  alterations  ^ 
and  you  must  demonstrate  the  fact  of  this :  you  must  then  go 
over  all  their  thirty-five  enormous  folios  :  exhibit  their  40,000 
pages  to  the  public,  and  prove  infallibly  that  there  is  no  error,  and 
no  contradiction  or  doubtful  sentiments  in  one  of  them;  but  an  una- 
nimous consent  to  all  your  peculiarities  of  Popery.  Hov^  many 
millions  of  such  men  as  Dr.  Power,  and  Mr.  Levins,  would  it  take^ 
with  the  aid  of  Dr.  Varela,  to  do  this,  think  you  ?  No  tongue  can* 
tell! 

But  mark  it,  the  settlement  of  this  point,  is  simple  and  easy  on 
our  part.  For  while  you  are  put  upon  proving  a  negative,  we  have 
the  easy  task  of  proving  an  affirmative.  I  have  done  it  in  my 
Letter  VIIL  I  selected  te?i  of  your  essential  peculiarities  of  popery : 
and  then  adduced  from  six  to  seventeen  of  the  best  of  the  Fathers, 
who  are  point  blank,  against  each  of  these  peculiarities.  It  is  of 
no  consequence  to  us  whether  your  Fathers'  volumes  be  authen- 
tic or  not.  And  thus,  by  the  simplest  process,  your  unanimous 
CONSENT  to  your  system,  has  been  utterly  annihilated.  No  man 
in  his  senses,  none  but  a  Jesuit  and  a  knave  will  venture  to  affirm 
that  there  is  any  such  thing  as  an  unanimous  consent  of  the  Greek 
and  Roman  Fathers.  There  is  an  universal  contradictioji  on  their 
part ;  both  among  themselves,  and  against  all  the  essentials  of 
Popery. 

But,  second,  you  all  saw  this  evil,  and  to  remedy  it  by  a  marvel- 
lous fiction,  to  astonish  the  natives,— you  have  invented  the  wild 
and  extravagant  fanaticism  of  infallibility.  And  you  affirm  with 
solemn  grimace,  that  "the  Church,"— meaning  the  Roman  Priests 

"know  these  traditions  by  her  infallibility."     Now,  mark  your 

sophistry  and  vicious  circle.  Who  has  a  right  to  decide  on  these 
traditions,  and  this  infallibility  ?  "Why,  the  Church,  to  be  sure," 
say  you :  "that  is  to  say,  the  Romish  Priests."  You  stand  for- 
ward with  no  other  power  and  authority  than  that  which  is  de- 
rived from  tradition  and  infallibility:  and  by  virtue  of  this  said 
powder,  from  unproved  tradition,  and  unproved  i?ifallibility,  you 
decide  formally  that  these  traditions  and  this  infallibihty  are  from 
God  our  Saviour !  You  borrow  from  these  uninspired  novelties, 
all  your  power  and  authority  of  office  :  and  then  by  this  official 
power,  you  prove  tradition  and  infallibility  divine  ! ! !  And  to 
throw  around  the  whole  argument  a  flood  of  glory,  "the  crater, 
Fergus  McAlpin,"  tells  the  religious  public  to  believe  that  Mr. 
Levins,  that  is  to  say,  his  own  dialects  and  incurable  blasphemy 
are  "irresistible  logic  ! !" 

These  arguments  of  yours,— (we  call  them  sophistry  and  the 
"vicious  circle,")— are  the  entire  corner  stone  of  your  old  and 
tottering  edifice, — already  tumbling  about  your  ears, — for,  blessed 
jae  God,  the  1260  years  of  "the  Beast's"  reign,  are  now  verging 


275 

nearly  toward  their  close.  This  is  the  only  and  entire  Idea  which 
you  have  advanced,  stript  as  it  has  been,  oral!  your  vcr])iage  and 
coarse  wit,  and  hlasphciny !  This  you  know  well ;  and  the  read- 
inc]:  puMic  also  know. 

But,  I  dill  not  stop  here: — your  Rule  I  next  attacked,  and  logi- 
cally demolished  by  tex  arguments:  no  great  task:  and  no  great 
honor  in  doing  it,  1  frankly  admit:  but  these  ten*  arguments  have 
not  to  this  day  been  touched,  far  less  refuted  by  you.  Yet, 
"Fergus  MacyVlpin"  tells  the  public  to  believe  that  Mr.  Levins's 
"logic  is  irresistible!"  This  was  the  second  branch  of  my  argu- 
ment; having  refuted  your  Rule,  the  only  rival  Rule  set  up;  of 
course,  I  was  entitled  to  the  conclusion  that  our  Rule  is  the  only 
Rule  of  Faith.  Thus  far,  then,  was  there  not  pofcct  inntij  in  my 
discussion?  I  next  devoted  two  long  letters  number  6  and  7,  to 
the  refutation  of  various  objections  which  your  zeal  had  collected, 
against  the  Holy  Bible,  our  Rule  of  Faith ;  and  you  now  stand 
convicted  of  Deism,  of  the  Hume  and  Voltaire  school;  in  the  es- 
timation of  every  Christian,  and  of  every  Deist  in  the  communi'y ! 
To  accomplish  this,  and  strip  the  vizor  oft'  your  face  before  an 
indignant  community,  was,  I  repeat  it,  one  main  object  of  my 
lingering  so  long  on  the  Rule.     My  labor  has"  not  been  lost. 

In  the  8th  letter,  I  showed  that,  in  abandoning  the  Word  of  God, 
as  the  only  Rule,  you  have  necessarily  apostatized  from  pure 
Christianity;  and  have  erected  a  perfectly  novel  system  in  its 
stead.  In  my  ninth  letter  I  have  endeavored  to  follow  out  this 
argument.  I  exhibited  a  collection  of  historical  documents,  to  de- 
monstrate the  appalling  result  of  your  apostacy  from  the  only 
Rule  of  Faith.  1  proved,  from  your  own  authentic  books,  that 
your  leading  doctrines,  rites,  and  monkish  orders  are  established 
in  fanaticism!  Is  there  no  unity  in  all  this  discussion?  When, 
and  where  have  I  abandomed  the  subject  ?  Has  not  the  Master 
to!d  us  that  "  by  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them  ?"  Have  we  not, 
then,  conducted  our  readers  to  the  pure  word  of  God,  which  like 
the  tree  of  life,  bears  all  manner  of  fruit ;  yielding  its  fruit  and 
leaves,  for  the  spiritual  food,  and  healing  of  the  nations?  And 
have  I  not,  amid  all  your  unmanly  vituperations,  been  solemnly 
warning  all  men  against  an  approach  to  your  fatal  tree  of  death, 
more  deadly  than  the  tree  of  the  East,  whose  mortal  influence 
poisons  the  air  and  scatters  on  every  hand,  w-asting  pestilence  and 
death! 

I  congratulate  you  on  your  frankly  avowing  the  truth,  for  once, 
namely,  that  there  is  no  version  of  the  Scriptures  in  English,  au- 
thorised hy  your  Pope,  or  Mother  Church.  Your  reply  to  my  ques- 
tion on  this  subject  was  "  Tra?iseatr  That  is,  let  that  pass; 
meaning  thereby,  to  say, — "  we  Priests  are  found  out :  it  is  prov- 
ed against  us:  our  '  Do  way  Bible'  is  a  hoax  on  the  Protestant  pub- 


276 

lie :  it  is  unauthorised  by  the  Pope  and  Church ! "  I  laud  your 
candor.  But,  then  you  have  placed  your  Vicar  General,  Doctor 
Power,  in  a  predicament  in  which  no  man  of  truth  or  honor  can 
be  found.  You  have  "  pontifically^^  convicted  him  of  a  mean  and 
scandalous  imposition,  and  at  the  same,  of  a  shocking  impiety.  In 
Clinton  Hall,  in  presence  of  the  public,  he  lifted  his  hands  towards 
heaven,  and  made  a  solemn  appeal  to  Almighty  God  that  he  and 
his  priestly  associates  did  zealously  encourage  the  reading  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  by  the  laity  of  their  flocks,  in  this  city !  And 
yet,  there  is,  as  you  now  admit,  no  authorised  version  of  them  in 
English ! ! 

This  is  the  second  extraordinary  admission  which  has  been  ex- 
torted from  you,  and  which  I  had  not  anticipated.  I  allude  to  the 
avowal  in  your  letter  No.  1.  that  your  religion,  and  that  of  the 
Protestants  are  not  modifications  of  the  one  thing  ;  that  they  are 
essentially  distinct.  You  say,  "  If  the  Cathohcs  are  right,  your 
Reformation  was  superfluous  and  a  rebellion  against  heaven.  If 
you  hold  the  truth,  the  chief  part  of  Catholic  worship  is  not  only 
erroneous,  but  idolatrous:  an  offence  against  heaven,  &c."  I 
thank  you  for  this  admission  in  the  face  of  the  American  people, 
and  I  trust  it  will  never  be  forgotten  by  the  reading  and  reflecting 
community.  We  are  as  opposite  as  Christ  and  Belial !  And  by 
this  last  admission,  you  have  doomed  your  own  Rule,  in  as  much 
as  it  proves  that  this  part  of  it,  namely,  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and 
also  the  Apocrypha,  are  utterly  inaccessible  to  your  priests,  as 
well  as  the  laity.  And  when  we  take  into  consideration  the  fact 
that  the  Unanimous  Consent  of  the  Fathers  does  not  exist ;  and 
its  proof  by  you  will  live  and  die  in  the  land  of  promise;  most 
manifest  is  it,  now,  if  any  doubt  did  heretofore  remain,  that  your 
Rule  is  by  your  infatuated  admission,  defective,  intangible,  false, 
and  utterly  useless  and  nullified  !  You  have  no  rule  of  faith 
FROM  Heaven  ! !  And,  hence,  as  in  all  usual  processes  of  nature ; 
— for  monsters  beget  monsters, — your  Rule,  originated  by  the 
prince  of  darkness,  naturally  begets  apostacies,  the  novel  sect  of 
Romanism  with  all  its  putrifying  mass  of  fanaticism,  and  supersti- 
tions, and  idolatries ; — unparalleled  in  the  moral  history  of  the 
Universe ! ! 

In  my  last  letter,  I  drew  the  public  attention  to  some  of  the 
proofs  of  this.  I  beg  leave  to  devote  another  letter  to  it.  Be 
pleased  then,  gentlemen,  to  follow  me  in  the  pleasing  task  I 

"  From  the  sublime  to  the  ridiculous,  there  is  only  a  single 
step,"  said  Napoleon  in  his  fatal  fall.  In  the  irrecoverable  fall  of 
the  Romish  Church,  she  has  united  the  most  lofty  and  daring  in 
claims  of  power  and  homage,  with  the  most  fantastic,  ludicrous, 
mean,  and  base  in  imposture,  and  degrading  in  action !  The 
illustration  of  this  will  teach-us  the  appalling  consequences  of 


277 

abandoning  the  oxly  guide  and  rule,  as  the  "  anomos  the  lawless 
One'^  has  done  in  Rome. 

1st.  Tliis  "Lawless  One"  has  set  up  claims  on  the  human  con- 
science, which  place  at  defiance,  all  sober  conceptions.  The  Ro- 
mish priesthood  claims  an  unbounded  ghostly  ))o\ver  over  their 
votaries,  their  deludeil  people.     Without  a  special  ivritlcn  license. 

from  the  j)riest,  no  man,  or  woman,  dare  read  the  Holy  Bible, 

even  admitting  that  there  were  an  authorised  veision  within  their 
reach.  That  is  to  say,  God  is  not  allowed,  without  sacerdotal 
permission,  to  speak  to  his  own  subjects!  And  men,  who  have 
to  account  unto  God,  each  man  for  himself,  and  not  by  proxy,  are 
not  allowed  without  a  wretched  polluted  priest's  permission,  to 
Iiear  God  speaking  unto  him  !  The  Romish  Church  tells  the  Al- 
mighty God,  that  he  shall  not  be  heard,  but  through  a  priest's  hps, 
and  even  as  that  priest  chooses !  The  Romish  Church  tells  the 
Almighty,  that  the  Priest  shall  explain  his  divine  will,  just  as  the 
priest, — ignorant,  incontinent,  and  vicious  as  he  is, — shall  be 
pleased:  -that  God  is  not  the  Lord  of  the  conscience;  that  the 
priest  has  a  right  to  dictate  to  man  all  that  God  only  has  a  right 
to  say!  That  the  priest  opens  heaven;  and  that  the  priest  opens 
and  shuts  up  in  purgatory,  and  in  hell ;  that  though  Christ  com- 
mands "  to  come  idthout  money  a?id  ivithout  price,^^  the  priest  and 
Church  tells  the  Almighty  that,  they  shall  pay  their  money  and 
give  the  priest  his  price  of  the  Mass  !  that  though  Christ  has  "  the 
keys  of  hell  and  of  death,"  and  sets  his  people  all  free,  the  Pope 
and  his  priestlings  reply  to  the  Most  High, — "  Now  thou  shalt 
not  w^ear  the  keys  of  hell  and  of  death,  I  demand  them  of  thee ; 
because  certain  Popes  dreamed  a  dream  and  told  us  that  St.  Peter 
got  them  from  thee, — thou  shalt  not  have  them !  Besides,  no 
man  shall  taste  the  freedom  from  the  yoke  of  bondage,  nor  have 
their  souls  emancipated  from  purgatory  until  we  get  all  the  gold 
and  silver  from  them  which  we  can  extract!"  This  is  the  man- 
date from  your  throne  of  Mammon  ! ! ! 

Hence,  Christ  and  his  atonement  are  entirely  shut  out,  the  idol 
is  set  up  in  its  place ;  human  merit,  gold  and'  silver,  occupy  the 
place  of  his  unspotted  righteousness ;  holy  water,  penance,  and 
ghostly  absolution  occupy  the  place,  which  the  Holy  Spirit  occu- 
pies in  his  own  pure  church.  The  very  object  of  divine  worship 
is  now  lost  sight  of,  in  the  confounding  and  bewildering  multiplici- 
ty of  created  gods  and  goddesses, — the  idols  set  up  !  The  Virgin 
is  Queen  of  Heaven:  she  is,  O  horrible  !  "  the  Mother  of  God  !" 
And  her  mother  St.  Anna  is  "  the  grandmother  of  God  ! !  "  The 
Virgin  has  more  prayers  oflered  up  to  her  by  your  well  educated 
flocks,  than  what  Christ  has ;  as  every  one  knows  who  is  acquaint- 
ed with  your  female  disciples.  And  each  new  saint,  added  for 
money,  and   by   some  subhme  Catholic  miracles,  absorbs  for  a 


278 

season,  all  the  worship.  In  the  year  1171,  for  instance,  there 
arose  a  new  god ;  namely  St.  Thomas  a  Becket,  an  impious  and 
haughty  Priest,  the  curse  and  scourge  of  his  country;  and  a  rebel 
against  his  lawful  sovereign ;  who  screened  from  the  civil  law,  the 
Priests  in  their  infamy  and  pollution.  He  was  murdered  by  some 
men,  indignant  at  his  insults  offered  to  the  king.  In  due  time  a 
magnificent  alta?'  was  erected  to  him  in  his  Cathedral  near  those 
of  Christ,  and  "the  Holy  Mother  of  God!"  One  main  use  of  al- 
tars in  our  Priests'  mass  houses,  is — by  the  way, — to  receive  the 
needful,  namely,  the  money  !  The  Holy  Priest  must  not  handle  it: 
he  needs  no  money ;  holy  man !  his  whole  soul  is  in  heaven !  The 
altar  receives  the  money :  it  is  given — not  to  the  Priests — Oh,  no 
— it  is  given  to  God  and  the  Saints  !  Well,  the  amount  of  gold 
and  silver  piled  up  on  the  altar  is  the  clearest  and  best  evidence 
which  of  the  Saints  gets  the  most  devotion  !  During  the  young 
honors  of  the  new  God,  the  accounts  stood  thus ;  On  Christ's  altar 
£3,  on  that  of  the  dead  priest,  £832  ! !  Next  year — this  Priest, 
eclipsed  Christ  and  "  the  Mother  of  God,"  accounts  stood  at  more 
fearful  odds!  On  Christ's  altar  £0 ; — nothing!  not  one  copper 
farthing,  and  hence  no  prayers  to  him  ! !  On  the  altar  of  Mary 
were  laid  £4:1:8.  On  that  of  the  wretched  dead  priest  £954 : 
6:  4. 

The  Roman  pontiffs  are  invested  with  different  degrees  of  pow- 
er by  the  four  grand  factions  existing  in  the  boson  of  "  undivided 
Motfier  Church."  The  first  makes  him  merely  a  President:  the 
second,  an  absolute  monarch :  the  third,  makes  him  equal  to  God, 
and  calls  him  "Our  God,"  "the  Lord  God  the  Pope:"  "  our  God 
on  earth:"  "None,"  says  St.  Bernard,  (1725)  "but  God  is  like 
unto  the  Pope,  either  in  heaven,  or  in  earth."  Edgar's  Variations 
of  Popery  p.  158.  The  fourth  faction  makes  the  Pope  superior  to 
God.  "  He  has  the  plenitude  of  power,  and  is  above  law."  Gibert 
1.  103.  Bellarmine,  iv.  5,  declares  that  he  can  bind  the  church 
to  believe  that  virtue  is  vice:  and  vice  is  virtue.  "Possumus,  &c. 
We  can  disjDcnse  with  law."  See  the  Decret.  Gregor.  III.  8.  iv. 
"  The  Pope  (Leo  X,)  has  power  above  all  powers  in  heaven  and 
in  earth."  See  Labb.  Concil.  vol.  19.  924.  Edgar,  p.  161. 

This  is  the  grand  practical  doctrine  exercised  with  such  tre- 
mendous mischief  at  the  confessional.  Such  power  is  lodged 
with  the  Priest  that  he  can  make  sin  no  sin ;  and  vice  laudable,  if 
committed  to  oblige  and  favor  the  Priest.  "  If  you  sin  with  me 
and  comply  with  my  will"  says  the  holy  man  possessing  a  chip  of 
the  Pope's  infallible  power, — "  I  will  absolve  you,  after  we  are 
done!"  "  I  will  absolve  you — for  a  trifle," — said  a  holy  Priest  to 
a  lady  of  my  acquaintance  of  the  North  Dutch  Church,  when  he 
was  urging  her  to  play  cards  and  gamble,  on  a  Sabbath  after- 
noon! 


279 

In  virtue  of  this  unlimited  power,  the  Pope  and  his  Jesuits 
claim  authority  over  tlie  })odies  and  souls  ot  all  men ;  and  over  all 
their  property, — be  they  Romans  or  be  they  Protestants  !  Does 
any  man  possess  such  I'ecble  conceptions  ot"  the  nature  and  spirit 
oflSt.  John's  "Beast,"  as  to  iinagiue  that  the  Protestant's  aposta- 
cy  and  heresy  have  put  Inm  beyond  the  Pope's  power  and  claims? 

No:      HE     CLAIMS    DOiMlMO.V     OVER    EVERY    TROTESTANT     AS    MUCH     AS 
EVER ! !  ! 

He  claims  power  also,  over  all  governments,  in  all  kingdoms, 
and  in  all  republics,  be  they  Protestant  or  Catholic.  I  know  that 
my  credulous  fellow  citizens  will  not  believe  this.  But  they  must 
allow  me  to  say  that  this  credulity  proceeds  from  the  success 
with  which  the  crafty  Jesuits  have  blinded  our  eyes;  and  palmed 
on  us  a  system,  as  their  system,  which  every  Priest  knows  to  be 
ridiculous  and  false  as  the  prince  of  darkness.  I  speak  not  of  the  en- 
lightened and  truly  patriotic  Catholics,  who  have  seen  through  the 
mask  of  ghostly  hypocrisy.  I  speak  of  the  Roman  Jesuitical  system, 
with  the  Pope  at  the  head  of  it.  "It  is  a  thing  most  manifest,"  says 
a  Romish  author,  Tesoro  Politico,  &c.  1602.  p.  20, — "  That  his 
Holiness  has  universal  power  over  all:  not  only  in  his  own  States, 
but  in  those  of  other  Princes,  and  in  all  the  world,  &c.  And 
Bellarmine,  Lib.  v.  cap.  6,  teaches  that  "the  Pope  has  the  chief 
power  of  disposing  of  the  temporal  aflairs  of  all  Christians,  in 
order  to  their  spiritual  good."  Yes,  for  their  spiritual  good ! 
Riches,  and  Scripture  doctrines  corrupt  men.  And,  therefore, 
for  man's  spiritual  good,  the  Priests  take  aw^ay  the  money  and  the 
Bible :  and  burn  the  body,  for  the  spiritual  good !  And  all  the 
world  has  read  the  saying  of  Pope  Innocent  III.  "  The  Church, 
my  spouse,  is  not  married  to  me  without  bringing  me  something : 
She  has  given  me  a  dowry  of  a  price  beyond  all  price, — the  pleni- 
tude of  spiritual  things;  and  the  extent  of  temporal  things!" 
"The  Pope,"  says  a  council  Avith  Gregory  VII,  at  its  head, 
"ought  to  be  called  the  universal  bishop ;  he  alone  ought  to  wear 
the  tokens  of  imperial  dignity;  all  Princes  ought  to  kiss  his  feet ; 
he  has  Power  to  dethrone  empires  and  kings^  and  is  to  be  judged 
by  none  !  "  And  Rome  never  amused  herself  with  empty  titles 
like  the  Persian  and  Chinese  Princes.  They  uttered  their  diaboli- 
cal edicts  in  thunder;  and  executed  them  with  fire  and  blood ! 
They  excommunicated  kings;  deposed  them  from  their  thrones; 
absolved  subjects  from  their  lawful  allegiance;  moved  nations  to 
bloody  rebellion;  abrogated  national  laws,  put  an  end  to  com- 
merce, and  trade;  turned  once  hap])y  nations  into  fields  of  blood. 
An  endless  succession  of  wars  in  Germany  w^as  originated  by 
Pontificial  pride;  no  tie  was  held  sacred;  no  oath  was  binding; 
no  law  of  God  or  man  was  respected,  il  the  Roman  Pontiff  could 
only  gratify  his  Satanic  passions ;   and  extend  his  anti-christian 


280 

power !  In  a  word,  Kings,  and  Princes,  and  Magistrates  were 
sacrificed  to  his  ambition.  And  while  the  flames  of  war  kindled 
by  him,  raged  over  many  lands,  and  while  oceans  of  human  blood 
were  shed  by  his  infernal  emissaries,  even  the  priesthood,  he  was 
all  the  time  busy  in  drawing  in  the  wealth  of  the  contending  na- 
tions. He  weakened,  and  divided,  and  then  conquered,  and  gain- 
ed infinite  wealth  by  national  robbery !  And  all  this  was  done  in 
the  name  of  Christ;  all  this  robbery  was  for  man's  spiritual  good  ; 
all  this  money  went  into  Holy  Peter's  purse  !  ! 

Touching  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  Popes  supremacy  there 
is  a  mistake  too  generally  prevailing  among  our  fellow  citizens. 
Our  political  men,  and  very  many  of  even  our  Christian  profes- 
sors, conceive  that  it  exists  merely  in  name,  among  the  Roman 
Catholics  in  our  country ;  and  that  it  is  not  acknowledged  now  by 
the  enlightened  members  of  that  sect.  This  is  a  great  error.  I  am 
indebted  to  an  estimable  friend  of  mine  for  an  important  fact  which 
goes  to  illustrate  this  matter.  He  states  what  took  place  in  our 
State  Legislature  about  26  years  ago :  he  was  at  that  time,  a 
member  of  it.  Francis  Cooper,  Esq.  ^ne  of  his  associates  elected, 
was  a  Roman  Catholic:  he  could  not  take  the  oath  of  office  and 
allegiance  because  it  bound  him  "  to  abjure  all  allegiance  to  king, 
prince,  potentate  and  power,  whether  ecclesiastical  or  civil."  He 
could  not  abjure  the  Pope's  supremacy.  On  his  petition,  and  that 
of  the  Roman  Cathohcs,  a  bill  was  brought  in  to  strike  out  the 
word  "  ecclesiastical."  An  animated  debate  took  place,  and  ow- 
ing to  the  rage  of  politics,  and  the  general  want  of  knowledge  of 
the  true  nature  and  tendency  of  Popery,  it  was  carried.  And  so 
the  Roman  Catholics  do  not  abjure  foreign  ecclesiastical  allegi- 
ance. This  establishes  the  fact  that  the  Papal  supremacy  is 
claimed,  and  admitted,  here,  as  much  as  in  the  darkest  lands  of 
Europe.  And  this  Papal  supremacy  includes  a  ghostly  despotism 
over  his  votaries  not  equalled  in  any  Turkish,  or  any  Pagan 
lands ! 

Some,  I  dare  say,  are  disposed  to  admit  that  the  plea  of  the  pa- 
pists is  plausible  and  right:  that  they  own  him  merely  as  their 
"  spiritual  head."  I  have  two  reasons  why  I  demur  to  this.  First, 
it  cannot  be  republican ;  nor  salutary  to  civil  liberty  to  be  under 
such  foreign  despotism, — that  a  man  cannot  think,  nor  write,  nor 
act,  or  even  read  the  Holy  Scriptures  without  being  exclusively 
moved  and  dictated  to  by  a  foreign  despot.  A  man  who  thus  sells 
his  soul,  and  his  Christian  liberty,  can  never  be  a  good  and  faithful 
lover  of  American  liberty:  it  is  utterly  impossible.  But,  this  is 
not  all,  this  separation  of  the  ecclesiastical  from  the  civil  and  tem- 
poral power  of  the  Pope  is  not  authorized,  not  even  recognized, 
far  less  allowed  by  the  Pope :  it  never  has  been  yielded  up  by  him : 
and  it  never  can,  and  it  never  will.     Why  ?  because  a  despot 


281 

never  yields,  but  for  ever  tries  to  acquire  more  power:  and  became, 
as  every  papist  pleads,  ihe  Pope  and  Church  are  infallible,  and 
immutable.  And  it  is  most  manifest  that  all  papists  who  separate 
the  spiritual  from  the  temporal  power,  are  in  the  very  act  of  re- 
bellion against  the  l*ope:  and  are  in  the  act  of  robbing  the  Pope 
of  the  most  brilliant  gem  in  his  crown, — his  infallible  immutabihty! 
The  sentiments  of  the  Popes  quoted  above,  fully  prove  this.  And 
the  case  of  Air.  Farmnn;  and  the  late  dilhculiies  between  ihe 
highly  respectable  and  intelligent  trustees  of  St.  Patrick's,  and  the 
Priests,  must  satisfy  every  one  that  the  Priests  and  Jesuits  hero 
have  never  given  up  this  claim  of  temporal  power:  and  never  will. 
It  is  true,  they  tell  the  Protestant  public,  that  they  admit  only  the 
spiritual  power  But  they  do  know,  and  every  intelligent  man 
in  the  community  knows,  that  the  Priests  have  sworn  before  Al- 
mighty God  to  uphold  the  Pope  i.v  all  the  extent  of  his  power: 
they  do  own  his  civil  power  as  much  as  his  spiritual,  or  as  the  only 
alternative,  they  are  perjured  knaves! 

The  present  Pope  has  exhibited  all  the  intolerance  and  bigotry 
of  the  ninth  century;  and  let  the  American  public  look  to  it, — 
every  one  of  you,  gentlemen,  and  every  Bishop  and  Priest  believe 
and  avow  the  same  sentiments.  Hear  them :  in  his  Circular  Let- 
ter pubUshed  in  the  Laity's  Directory  in  Europe  and  America, 
this  supreme  head,  lately  pronounced  from  the  Vatican,  that 
"liberty  of  conscience  is  an  absurd  and  dangerous  maxim:  or 
RATHER  THE  RAVINGS  OF  DELIRIUM !"  And  you,  gentlemen,  believe 
and  unblushingly  advocate  the  same  thing:  and  you  have  not  the 
assurance  to  come  out  and  deny  it.  Let  the  American  public, 
both  political  and  religious,  look  at  this :  let  them  watch  the  Priests 
if  they  will  disavow  this  bull  of  their  present  ghostly  head  at 
Rome  ! 

This  is  not  all:  the  Pope  and  all  his  Priest  are  sworn  enemies 
to  the  liberty  of  the  Press:  to  them  it  is  a  torturing  nuisance. 
Hear  the  present  Pope's  own  words  in  the  above  named  Circular. 
The  liberty  of  the  Press,  he  calls  "  that  fatal  license  of  which 
WE  CANNOT  ENTERTAIN  TOO  MUCH  HORROR  !"  And  if  cvcr  they  gain 
the  ascendency  here,  they  will  soon  show  this,  by  the  Codex  Kx- 
puigatorius;  by  chains,  dungeons,  racks  and  fires!  In  admitting 
the  Pope's  supremacy,  they  are  sworn,  on  pain  of  damnation,  to 
admit  and  honor  all  this  dictation  (rom  ihe  Pope ! 

2d.  In  Rome's  utter  apostacy  from  the  only  Rule  of  Faith,  she 

HAS    IRRECOVERABLY    LOST  THE  SPIRIT  OF  CHRISTIANITY.       Her  wholfl 

system,  and  her  whole  priesthood  breathe  the  deepest  malignity 
against  all  who  differ  from  them. 

The  genius  of  Christianity  is  love,  pure,  holy,  unsubdueable  love 
and  benevolence.     "God   is  love;  and  he  that  dwelleth  in  love 
dwelleth  in  God,  and  God  in  him."     "  He  that  loveth  not,  knowBth 
36 


289 

not  God,  for  God  is  love."  "  If  a  man  say  I  love  God,  and  hateth 
his  brother,  he  is  a  liar!"  "Whosoever  hateth  his  brother  is  a 
murderer !  and  ye  know  that  no  murderer  hath  eternal  hfe  abid- 
ing in  him."  St.  J-ohn's  1st  Epistle.  This  is  the  pure  genius  of 
Christianity. 

Now  contemplate  the  spirit  of  the  Roman  CathoUc  Church, 
ever  since  her  great  apostacy ; — as  displayed  in  her  dogmas,  and 
actions.  The  maxim  "  that  no  faith  is  to  be  kept  with  here- 
tics" has  been  a  favorite  doctrine  with  Rome,  most  firmly  believ- 
ed and  rigidly  acted  upon.  Pope  Gregory  VII.  made  a  decree  to 
this  purpose,  which  has  not  been  revoked.  Martin  V.  said  in  his 
letter  to  the  Duke  of  Lithuania, — "  Be  assured  that  thou  sinnest 
mortally,  if  thou  keepest  thy  faith  with  heretics!  Gregory  IX. 
made  a  decree  absolving  all  people  from  their  vows  and  obliga- 
tions to  those  who  had  fallen  into  heresy.  And  the  Bishop  Siman- 
ca,  sometime  Professor  of  Law  in  the  University  of  Salamanca, 
in  his  famous  work  "  The  Catholic  Institutions," — says  in  his 
Commentary  on  this  law  of  Gregory  TX.,  that  "by  this  law,  all 
governors  are  set  free  from  the  bond  of  their  oath."  "  A  Catholic 
wife  is  set  free  from  her  obligations  to  perform  her  marriage  con- 
tract with  her  heretical  husband."  And  he  adds  "Justly,  there- 
fore, were  some  here'ics^  [Huss  and  Jerome]  burned  by  the  Coun- 
cil of  Constance,  although  they  had  been  promised  security  1" 
The  general  council  of  Constance  did  solemnly  establish  this 
characteristic  and  sanguinary  dogma  of  the  Roman  Cathohc 
Church,  that  "  no  faith  must  be  kept  with  heretics."  And  all  are 
heretics  who  differ  from  "  Holy  Mother,"  in  faith,  and  in  the  least 
iota  of  ceremony. 

Carrying  out  this  principle,  Rome  pronounces  all  who  refuse  to 
yield  unlimiied  obedience  to  the  Pope's  despotism  in  all  things,  to 
be  heretics;  and  heretics  are  traitors  against  heaven  and  Almigh- 
ty God,  because  they  are  rebels  against  heaven's  vicar.  And  by 
that  fact  are  their  lives  forfeited ;  and  it  is  a  duty  to  burn,  kill,  cut 
down,  and  exterminate  them  from  the  face  of  the  earth.  "  And 
the  blood  of  heretics,"  say  the  Rhemish  annotators,  "is  no  more 
the  blood  of  the  saints  than  is  the  blood  of  thieves  and  murderers!!" 
By  this  solemn  dogma  of  t)ie  Romish  Church,  all  devoted  Roman 
( 'atholics  are  taught  from  their  childhood,  to  believe  that  to  kill  a 
Protestant,  or  a  heretic,  is  doing  God  a  service,  because  it  is  the 
act  of  executing  Holy  Mother  Church's  law.  Hence  that  unsub  ■ 
dueable  enmity,  malice,  wrath,  and  murderous  hatred,  which  all 
bigoted  Catholics  feel  in  their  hearts  against  Protestants,  Jews, 
and  others !  They  abhor  them  even  as  one  abhors  the  prince  of 
darkness!  They  believe  them  all  to  be  worse  than  thieves,  rob- 
bers, and  murderers ;  their  canons  and  their  priests  daily  teach 
that  not  one  man  can  be  saved  who  is  not  a  Roman  Catholic  !• 


283 

And  besides  these  weekly  and  daily  impressions  made  by  the 
priests,  and  by  the  diabolical  spirit  breathed  throughout  their 
books  and  conversations,  "  the  laiihful"  are  accustomed  once 
every  year  at  least,  that  is  on  the  Thursday  of  Passion  ueek,  to 
see  the  Pope's  representative,  in  his  flaming  scarlet  robes,  (the 
emblem  of  tlieir  bloody  purpose)  pronouncing  the  curse  of  present 
and  perpetual  perdition  on  all  Protestants.  This  is  regularly  done 
in  our  cities  and  throughout  the  land. 

This  spirit,  thus  nurtured  into  being,  has  often  burst  forth  rs  a 
merciless  demon  from  ''  the  bottomless  pit  "     Hence  the  murder- 
ous wars  of    the  Crusades  against  the  Turks,  and  the  Christian 
Waldenses  !     Hence  the  wars  of  Germany,  and  of  all  Europe,  in 
the  dark  ages,  and  in  the  times  of  the  Reformation.     The  Roman 
Catholic  princes  of  the  house  of  Bourbon,  and  Austria,  went  forth 
at  the  Pope's  nod  "doing  God  service,"  for  "the  spiritual  good  of 
man;"  persecuting,  plundering,  burning,  and  killing  Protestants. 
Hence  the  horrid  interdicts,  and  excommunication  of  kings,  and 
whole  nations;   hence  depositions,  and  the  absolving  of  subjects 
from  their  allegiance  and  duty  to  the  magistracy,  and  the  laws ; 
the  suspension  of  trade  and  commerce;  the  refusal  to  let  the  dead 
be  buried;  and  all  the  innumerable  evils  which  Popish  fury  could 
devise  and  inflict  on  a  people :  Hence  the   cool  and   systematic 
murders  of  Protestants  and  others  ;  in  a  long  and  bloody  train  of 
persecutions, — not  to  speak  of  the  Inquisition.     Fifty  millions  op 
HUMAN  BEING?,  as  wc   shall  afterwards  show,  have  been    offered 
up  on  the  altar  of  the  bloody  Roman  Catholic  faith.     8t.  John,  in 
vision,  saw  Rome  Catholic  "  di'unk  with  the  blood  of  the  Saints," 
Now,  he  that  hateth  his  brother  man,  is  a  murderer  !     What  must 
Rome  be,  which  has  made  the  hatred  of  men,  who  differ  from  her 
in  religion,  an  article  of  her  solemn  creed  ?     What  must  she  be, 
who  has  shed  such  oceans  of  human  blood  ?     Is  it  not  a  mockery 
of  religion  and  reason  to  call  her  a  church  of  Christ '(     Js  it  not  an 
outrage  on  reason,  to  call  that — Christianity,  which  stimulates  her 
to  do  such  damnable  deeds  ?     Moloch  and  Juggernaut  are  mere 
children  in  murderous  crimes,  compared  to  this.     Tell  me  not 
that  Protestants  have  persecuted.     They  have  done  so;  but  then 
itis  no  part  of  their  religion.     Calvin  and  others  acted  under  the 
unrepealed  bloody  laws  which  had  been  passed  by  Roman  Catho- 
hcs,  when  Servetus  was  burned.     There  is  nothing  in  the  canons 
or  creed  of  Protestants  stimulating  to  p^'secution  :^  but,  on   the 
contrary,  every  sentiment  in  their  cree-^s  and  confessions,  breathes 
love   and  benevolence.      The  early  f'rotestants  were  only  acting 
out  the  infamous  lessons  which  they  had  unhappily  learned  from 
the  Roman  Catliohcs.     But  it  is  a  part  of  the  canons,  and  an  ele- 
mental part  of  the  religion  of  Rome,  as  we  have  seen  above,  to 
persecute  and  kill  heretics  !     And  as  if  all  this  were  not  enough, 


S84 

the  Pope  claims  the  power  of  persecuting,  even  after  death :  he 
claims  the  power  of  damnation  !  He  has*  the  keys  to  shut  out  of 
heaven,  and  shut  up  in  hell !  Let  any  look,  for  proof  of  this,  into 
the  Bulls.  I  take  up,  for  instance,  the  Bull  of  excommunication 
against  Queen  Elizabeth  of  England.  Here  is  the  title  of  it.  "The 
damnation  and  excommunication  of  Elizabeth  and  her  adherents, 
&c."  **  Pope  Pius,  servant  of  the  servants  of  God," — ''marvel- 
lously humble  this  knave  was) — "in  perpetuam  rei  memoriam, 
&c."  Here  we  see  the  result  of  the  Roman  aposlacy,  irom  the 
ONLY  RULE.  Can  that  Rule  adopted  by  the  Romish  Church,  which 
stimulates  to  such  deeds  these  monsters  in  human  form,  be  a 
Rule  given  to  us  from  infinite  love  and  benevolence?  It  is  im- 
possible ! 

3.  Can  a  Rule  which  generates  the  most  deplorable  ignor- 
ance, and  REVOLTING  PROFLIGACY,  bc  cvcr  imagined  to  proceed  from 
the  fountain  of  all  light  and  holiness  ? 

In  every  Catholic  country,  the  priesthood,  according  to  the  let- 
ter of  instruction,  and  oath  of  office,  direct  their  unmitigated  hos- 
tility against  these  two  things;  namely,  the  promiscuous  readinor 
of  the  Holy  Bible;  and  the  universal  education  of  the  people. 
"The  Bible  shall  not  be  given  to  the  people:  the  laity  shall  never 
be  permitted  to  read  the  Scriptures,  when,  and  as  they  please;" 
education  shall  not  be  given  to  the  people  universally;  we  are 
the  fountain  of  knowledge;  we  the  Catholic  priests  have  the  keys : 
we  have  the  keeping  of  God's  will  and  secrets  :  and  we  let  \he 
light  out,  orally,  as  we  please  !  Education  and  reading  the  Bible 
only  make  heretics !  The  more  intelligent  a  people  are  made  by 
reading,  the  nearer  are  they  to  damnation!"  This  is  in  every 
priest's  lips:  it  is  the  burden  of  their  preaching;  and  of  their  every 
day  conversations. 

The  Pope  in  his  late  Circular,  denounced  Bible  Societies,  as 
"the  device  of  the  devil."  And  his  priests,  as  in  duty  bound,  by 
their  oaths,  re-echo  this  hostility  to  the  Bible  and  education,  every 
where.  And  m  our  own  land,  as  well  as  in  Italy,  and  Spain,  the 
priesthood  are  laboriously  employed  in  watching  over  their  flocks : 
not  in  instructing  them:  not  in  meliorating  their  condition :  not  in 
communicating  education  and  industrious  habits!  But  in  check- 
ing the  dangerous  inroads  of  light ;  and  the  fatal  consequences  of 
universal  education  !  And  in  those  places  where  the  influence  of 
Protestants  constrains  ihem  to  open  schools,  what  do  thev  leach 
the  youthful  spirits  of  our  city?  To  say  ten  thousand  Ave  Marys : 
to  pray  to  innumerable  idols:  to  hate  and  execrate  the  English 
version  of  the  Bible:  to  hate  and  abhor  Protestants:  to  own  the 
Pope's  and  Priest's  unlimited  despotism:  to  consider  the  Pope's 
and  Priest's  power  above  that  of  our  President,  and  all  our  gover- 
nors; and  all  the  magistracy  of  the  land:  that  our  government 


2Sb 

and  magistrates,  being  heretics  are  merely  usurpers;  that  the  time 
is  coming  when  they  shall  gain  ascendency,  and  shall  crush  all 
heretics  and  all  heretical  rulers!  And,  yet,  these  men  would  wish 
to  have  money  hum  our  public  funds,  paid  by  the  ta\cs  levied  on 
Protestants,  to  support  these  nunneries,  and  seminaries,  \Nhere 
these  principles  are  taught,  subversive  of  all  order  in  Europe,  and 
America ! 

The  people  who  are  imbued  with  Popery,  are,  generally  speak- 
ing, more  ignoiant,  and  far  more  ferocious  than  tliose  of  J'agan 
Egypt,  Greece,  or  Rome.     And  in  point  of  idolatry,  superstition 
and  morals,  the  ancient  Greeks  and  Romans  were  far  purer,  and 
more  lefined!     The  proof  of  this  meets  the  eye  of  every  travel- 
ler in  Switzerland,  Italy,  Spain,   and  in  trodden    down   Ireland. 
Poverty  is  the  child  of  Ivomish  idolatry  and  superstition.     In  the 
Eastern  despotism,  the  tyrant  robs  the  subject  of  the  fruits  of  in- 
dustry ;  and  paralyses  all  his  eflbrts.     In  Popish  communities  the 
PRIEST  fleeces  the  obedient  flocks  ;  and  paralyses  the  arm  of  indus- 
try.    Add  to  this,  that  there  are  so  many  Saints  days,  and  Lady 
days,  and  holy   festival  days,  when  no  man  truly  Catholic,  dare 
follow  his  lawful  avocations.     'J  hese    do   almost  cut  off'  the  poor 
man's  little  income:  and  make  him  miserably  poor.     And,  then, 
patron  Saints  days  are  closed  with  brutal  revelry  and  debauchery! 
They  glorify  their  saints  and  idols,  by  figh'ing.  gambling,  swear- 
ing, blasphemy,  and   brutish  drunkenness  !     Look  for  proof  at 
Rome,  Naples,  Madrid,  the  South  of  Ireland,  and  that  portion  of 
the  holy  Mr.  Levins's  holier  portion  of  his  parish,  called  "the  five 
points"  in  the  sixth  ward  of  New  York! 

We  formerly  quoted  the  lives  of  the  Popes:  and  showed  out  of 
your  own  writers  Baronius,  and  Guiciardini,  that  "He  w^as  usually 
deemed  a  good  Pope  who  did  not  excel  in  wickedness,  the  worst 
of  the  human  kind  !"  And  he  being  the  fountain  head  of  impurity, 
pollution  naturally  flowed,  through  his  owm  accredited  priesthood, 
as  a  dead  sea  over  all  the  land  !  The  moral  infamy  of  a  Church 
must  be  consummate,  when,  by  the  decree  of  Pope  Paul  III,  houses 
which  I  cannot  name,  were  openly  licensed  ;  and  G0,000  infamous 
beings  yielded  their  immense  revenues  of  wickedness  to  the  Pope's 
treasures.  And  it  is  so  in  Rome,  unto  this  day! — These  licenses 
aflford  "Holy  Father"  large  revenues  ! 

And  it  has  been  a  subject  of  amusement  to  those  who  are  inti- 
mate with  our  priests,  to  hear  their  aflectatinn  and  prudery  about 
the  admirable  little  book,  and  true  narrative  "  Lorette,  or  the 
daughter  of  a  Canadian  Nun."  They  call  it  "  an  obscene  fiction!" 
Bravo!  A  Roman  Catholic  Priest  affecting  to  have  his  modesty 
shocked  at  "Lorette,"  a  moral  and  instructive  narrative!  A 
priest  shocked  at  imaginary  "  obscenity,"  into  whose  ears,  and 
imagination,  and  heart,  is  daily  poured,  at  the  Confessional,  at 


286 

into  a  common  sewer,  all  that  is  impure,  polluting,  and  loathsome, 
in  a  whole  parish  !     "  Credat  Judaeus  Apelles,  non  Egol" 

Let  any  one  take  up  Paschal's  Provincial  letters,  and  that  book 
sold  in  our  bookstores,  called  "  Secreta  Monita,  The  secret  in- 
structions of  the  Jesuits  : "  and  let  him  read  the  extracts  out  of  the 
320  Jesuit  writers,  on  morality,  and  he  will  easily  discover  that 
paganism,  counting  in  even  Sodom,  had  nothing  to  equal  Romish 
doctrines,  and  Jesuit  vileness  ' 

I  took  up  the  folio  volumes  of  Ludovicus  Molina  the  other  day, 
and  read  a  passage  to  a  friend  of  mind,  out  of  the  11 50  page,  2(1 
volume,  in  Latin:  to  give  him  an  idea  of  the  moral  instructions 
given  to  servants,  as  he  had  some  Roman  Catholic  servants  in 
his  family:  I  then  turned  to  the  extract  out  of  Cardenus,  Crisis, 
Theolog.  Diss.  23.  cap.  2.  p.  474;  and  there  read  to  him,  what  is 
instilled  into  the  ears  of  the  "simple  faithful,"  that  he  might  know 
how  to  trust  these  women  who  go  to  make  confessions  to  expell- 
ed Jesuits.  Here  are  the  words.  "  Servants  may  secretly  steal 
from  their  masters  as  much  as  they  judge  their  labor  is  worth, 
more  th  in  th(5  wages  they  receive."  "  In  good  earnest,"  exclaim- 
ed my  friend,  "  one  of  my  domestics,  who  is  quite  punctual  in 
going  to  confession,  has  been  reducing  this  literally  into  practice: 
I  have  derected  this  Roman  Catholic  woman  robbing  me,  to  some 
considerable  amount." 

"  She  acted  upon  principle,"  said  I,  "  and  is  an  apt  scholar:  the 
priest  shrieves  her,  and  receives  his  boon." 

I  read  him  some  more  extracts:  Here  they  are:  "A  man  is  not 
bound  to  restore  what  he  has  stolen  in  small  sums,  however  large 
may  be  the  total"  See  Tambur.  Explic.  Decal.  Lib.  8.  p.  205. 
Again  :  ''  A  woman  may  take  the  property  of  her  husband  to  sup- 
ply her  SPIRITUAL  wants,  and  to  act  as  other  women  !"  That  is, 
women,  who  are  more  punctual  in  confessing  than  men,  may  rob 
to  pay  Holy  father  Confessor.  See  Goi  donius  TheoL  Mor.  Univ. 
p.  826.  Again:  "After  a  son  has  robbed  secretly  his  father,  as 
a  compensation,  t(ie  Confessor  need  not  enforce  restituiion,  if  he 
has  taken  no  more  than  the  just  reward  of  his  labor."  See  Fran. 
Xavier  Feo-eli.  p.  158.  And  the  following  will  show  how  a  Jesuit 
feels  towards  magistrates: — "A  priest  cannot  be  forced  to  give 
his  testimony  before  a  secular  Judge."  See  Taberna  vol.  2.  p. 
228.  And  Tamburinus,  Lib.  3.  p.  27,  teaches  that,  "  the  Judge  is 
not  a  competent  lawful  authority  to  receive  the  testimony  of  Ec- 
clesiastics." Emmanuel  Sa  teaches  in  Aphor.  p.  41,  that  "the 
rebeUion  of  Roman  Priests  is  not  treason,  because  they  are  not 
subject  to  civil  government.'^  Airault  Cens.  p.  319,  teaches  this  doc- 
trine of  assassination,  "  If  a  calumniator  will  not  cease  to  publish 
calumnies,  you  may  fitly  kill  him,  not  publicly  but  secretly,  to 
avoid  scandal."    And  Escobar  in  his  Theol.  Moral,  vol.  4.  p.  274, 


287 

taught  that,  ''  it  is  lawful  to  kill  an  accuser,  whose  testimony  may 
jeopard  your  life  and  honor."  And  to  consummate  ilieir  villain- 
ous doctrine,  Busembaum  and  l.ecroix  in  Tl  ed.  Moral.  v(  I.  p. 
295,  teach  this  doctrine  oi*  devils: — "Jn  all  the  above  cai^cs  where 
a  man  has  a  right  to  kill  any  |  erson,  another  may  do  it  lor  him,  if 
aflection  moves  the  mukdeuf.k  !  I  " 

1  beg  leave  to  add  here,  what  our  unsus]iecting  fellow  citizens 
will  scarcely  believe:  but  it  can  be  fully  proved  from  the  standard 
writings  of  the  Romish  Church  ; — it  is  this:  all  Jesuits  and  Papists 
(I  mean  Priests  and  those  bigois  who  obey  them)  believe  that  the 
property  of  all  Protestants,  being  heretics,  is  forfeited,  and  belongs 
of  right,  ti)  *'  Holy  mother  Church,"  just  as  in  monarchies  where 
the  man's  property  is  confiscated,  who  is  guilty  of  high  treason. 
Hear  their  words  : — "  Every  (.hrisiian  government  as  soon  as  they 
openly  abandon  the  Roman  faith  instantly  are  degraded  from  all 
power  and  dignity,  by  human  and  divine  right."  Philop.  Kespons. 
ad  Edict,  p.  100.  That  is,  the  Cathohcs  may  seize  on  their  pow- 
er and  means.  Bellarmine  te  .ches,  as  we  have  already  seen,  in 
Lib.  V.  cap.  6,  that  the  Pope  has  the  chief  power  of  disposing  of 
the  temporal  affairs  of  all  Christians,  &c."  And  Pope  Innocent 
VIII.  in  his  bloody  bull  by  which  he  sent  a  crusade  of  armed  ban- 
dits, to  extirpate  the  Waldenses,  in  the  year  1487,  "gave  a  full 
and  entire  license,"  to  his  Nuntio,  "to  grant  to  every  one  of  the 
soldiers  of  the  crusade,  a  permission  to  seize  and  freely  possess 
the  goods,  movable  and  immovable:  and  to  give  them  for  a 
prey,  whatever  the  heretics  have  brought  to  the  lands  of  the  pa- 
pists." He  then  proceeds  to  say  that  all  who  are  bound  by  con- 
tract to  assign  and  pay  any  thing  to  them  (the  Waldenses)  are 
set  entirely  free  from  all  such  bonds,  to  keep  and  possess  what  be- 
longs to  them. 

I  shall  sum  up  the  moral  character  of  Jesuitism,  which  has 
been  thirty-mne  times  abolished  and  expelled  from  the  different 
governments  of  Europe  :  and  in  doing  this,  I  shall  employ  ihe 
high  authority  of  the  Arret  of  the  Parhament  of  France  in  1702, 
when  it  extirjiated  the  Jesuits.  "  The  consequences  of  their  doc- 
trines destroy  the  law  of  nature,  break  all  the  bonds  of  civil  so- 
ciety: authorizing  lying,  theft,  perjury,  the  utmost  uncleanness, 
murder,  and  all  sins!  Their  doctrines  root  out  all  sentiments  of 
humanity:  excite  rebellion:  root  out  religion:  and  substitute  all 
sorts  of  superstition,  blasphemy,  irreligion,  and  idolatry."  Such 
is  the  declaration  of  the  Parliament  of  Paris.  See  the  Secret  In- 
structions of  the  Jesuits,  Appendix  p.  III.  &c. 

Now  this  order  of  Jesuits  has  been  revived  and  organized  :  and, 
hear  it,  all  my  fellow  citizens,  avowedly  is  it  revived  and  employ- 
ed with  all  its  diabolical  cunning  and  power,  to  gai\  over  the 
United  States  !     And,  here  they  avail  themselves  of  the  perfect 


288 

religious  liberty  of  our  Republic,  to  carry  on  a  deep  conspiracy 
against  ihe  Protestant  religion,  and  our  civil  liberty.  It  is  a  tre- 
mendous sword,  the  riilt  of  which  is  at  Rome  !  Every  vessel  that 
arrives  brings  in  multitudes  of  Jesuit  Pr  ests  in  disguise.  And  all 
of  them  conspire  in  aiming  a  tremendous  blow,  which,  if  God 
prevent  not,  and  ward  off  from  our  slumbering  fellow  citizens,  will 
fall  with  the  horrors  of  a  Skullabog,  Irish,  and  Parisian  massacre! ! 
I  have  yet  to  treat  of  the  superstition  and  impostures  of  your 
Church;  in  order  to  illustrate  further  the  effects  of  your  fatal 
apostacy  from  the  only  rule.  But  this  I  must  postpone,  for  want 
of  room. 

Now,  you  have  hitherto  performed  feats  of  unmatched  vitupera- 
tion :  will  you  permit  me,  gentlemen,  to  beg  you  to  meet  for  once, 
my  charges  and  arguments.  I  have  copied  my  extracts  from 
your  own  books.  Disprove  and  refute  them  if  you  can.  This 
can  be  done  only  by  abjuring  your  own  books ;  or  detecting  false 
quotations:  meet  them  los^ically  as  men:  or  frankly  tell  us  the 
truth,  that  you  cannot.  Either  alternative  requires,  I  fear,  more 
courage  than  what  you  possess. 

W.  C.  BROWNLEE, 
Collegiate  Minister  of  the  Middle  and  North  Dutch  Churches* 
New  York,  June  18,  1833. 


Reply  of  Dr,  I'ower  and  Mr.  JLcvins, 
TO   DR.    BROWNLEE. 

No.  10. 

'    For  behold  I  have  made  thee  a  Zj«Ze  one,  despicable  among  men.     Thy  arrogancy  hsxh 
deceived  thee  and  the  pride  of  thy  heart.     Jer.  Ixix. — 15.  16. 

Rev.  Sir, — In  our  last  letter  certain  remarks  were  expressed, 
bearing  on  those  edifying  dispositions  of  mind  produced  by  the 
consciousness  of  defeat  in  intellectual  strife.  Their  philosophy  is 
true  to  human  nature.  You  have  proved  it.  To  elucidate  their 
truth  no  deep  research  is  required,  no  recondite  passages  from 
the  learning  of  antiquity  need  be  called^  Every  thing  abounds 
in  your  ultra  last  even  to  the  palling  rankness  of  luxuriance. 

In  your  last,  you,  the  intimate  with  the  "Hebrew  and  Greek  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,"  have  out-Brownleed  Brownlee.  The  merit  is 
great,  and  only  a  Brownlee  could  have  achieved  it ; — only  the 
Brownlee  of  Letter  No.  10,  could  have  transcended  the  Brownlee 
of  No.  9.     Can   a  deeper  sink  be  fathomed  ?     "  Abyss  calls  on 


289 

abyss!"  VVill  the  minister  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church  obey  the 
unearthly  suinmonino^  ?     Will  we  meet  at  Philippi  ? 

It  was  supposed  by  the  enlightened  and  shrewd  among  your 
"  Christian  public,"  and  by  the  "  highly  intelligent"  among  your 
^'virtuous  ladies,"  that  there  was  a  recklessness  of  public  feeling,  a 
contempt  tor  public  opinion,  displayed  in  your  No.  9,  that  could 
not  be  surpassed;  it  was  believed  that  it  furnished  to  reflecting 
minds  those  proofs  of  utter  disregard  for  your  own  private  honor 
and  worth  as  a  man,  that  could  not  be  made  darker  ot  more 
damning,  yet,  it  must  now  be  admitted  that  conjecture  and  judg- 
ment have  failed  in  fixing  limits  to  your  many  excellencies.  Your 
strides  in  passing  through  the  superlative  degrees  of  unenviable 
distinction  have  been  rapid  and  gigantic.  To  name  a  goal  where 
progress  should  stop  must  not  in  future  be  attempted, — it  would 
be  unjust.  Interference  with  propensities  which,  evidently,  are 
satiated  with  indulgence  only  of  the  rankest  kind,  would  not 
merely  be  injudicious  but  despotic.  The  liberty  of  conscience  con- 
ferred by  your  "  ever  blessed  Reformation"  must  not  be  checked 
or  controlled- 

Still,  though  as  you  advance,  a  something  more  crude  and  more 
abortive,  more  misshapen  and  more  monstrous  in  form  and  linea- 
ment than  your  No.  10,  may  claim  you  as  its  parent,  your  unri- 
valled Last  will  serve  every  purpose  of  illustrative  reference.  If 
the  urbanity,  politeness,  and  honor  characteristic  of  the  "  Gentle- 
man,'^ the  logical  precision,  classical  phrase  and  critical  accuracy 
that  denote  the  "  Writer,'^  be  required,  seek  them  in  Preacher 
Brownlee's  Letter  No.  10.  If  the  charity  which  is  not  of  earth, 
which  is  not  the  "  tinkling  of  the  cymbal," — if  the  love,  even  of 
enemy,  which  is  comma?ided  by  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  if  zeal, 
unlike  to  that  oozing  out  darkly  from  the  dark  heart  of  the  fanatic, 
if  the  liberality  which  knows  not  the  blasting  creed  of  the  bigot, 
if  the  generosity  which  disowns  kindred  with  selfishness,  if  the 
manliness  which  scathes  the  coward,  if  the  purity  of  mind  which 
shrinks  from  contact  with  obscene  allusion,  and  shudders  at  the 
thought  of  recommending  an  immoral  tale,  if  this,  all  this,  be  the 
subject  of  your  search,  religious  reader,  become  familiar  with 
Preacher  Browuilee's  Letter  No.  10; — 

"Noctiirna  versate  manu,  versate  diurna." 

But,  Rev.  Preacher  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church,  prodigality  in 
compliment  must  not  be  too  far  indulged.  It  might  introduce  an 
earthly  alloy  into  that  Christian  humility  for  which  you  are  so 
eminently  distinguished,  though  the  words  of  the  prophet  Jeremi- 
as  used  as  the  heading  to  this  letter  say,  "thy  arrogancy  hath  de- 
ceived thee  and  the  pride  of  thy  heart."  As  we  would  not  willing- 
ly be  burthened  with  the  guilt  of  corrupting  your  humility  by  over- 
No.  19—37 


290 

strained  eulogy,  as  we  would  not,  for  worlds,  incur  the  displea- 
sure of  your  "  virtuous  ladies"  by  warring  against  a  virtue,  which 
they,  imitating  the  example  of  their  saintly  director,  cuhivate,  we 
must  indulge  you  in  the  ascetic  bias  you  so  ardently  cherish,  and 
plainly,  not  rudely,  affirm,  you  have  been  totally  defeated  on  your 
Rule  of  Faith  and  Judge  of  Controversies.  The  consciousness  of 
this  defeat  is  evident,  glaringly  visible,  in  every  paragraph  o4 
your  LAST.  There  are  the  ascerbity  of  mind,  the  sourness  of  tem- 
per, the  sullenness  of  disposition,  the  recklessness  of  truth,  the  in- 
difference to  character,  the  unblushing  assertion,  the  faithlessness 
in  citing  authority,  the  wilfulness  that  would  inflict  injur}^,  and 
the  suggestion  that  would  affix  a  stain  to  character,  which  ever 
have  been  the  last  resources  of  ungenerous  minds  when  writhing 
under  disgrace,  defeat  and  overthrow, — when  tortured  by  the  worm 
that  never  dies.  Every  line  is  penned  as  if  the  staining  liquid 
were  a  gall-drop,  and  in  every  one  there  is  the  agonized  energy 
that  would  drink  hope  from  the  lees  of  despair.  The  mind  from 
which  the  last  letter  of  our  polemic  adversary  has  emanated  is^ 
evidently,  not  at  rest,  not  in  peace.  It  is  the  home  of  vexation, 
and  sorrow,  and  grief.  It  is  the  abode  of  a  spirit  not  unlike  that 
which  uttered  the  lost  archangel's  words,  when  he  lay 


"  O'erwhelmed 


With  floods  and  whirlwinds  of  tempestuous  fire.' 
"  What  though  the  field  be  lost  T 


All  is  not  lost ;    th'  unconquerable  wi 
And  study  of  revenge,  and  mortal  hate  !" 

Could  the  "  Challenge"  be  recalled  it  would  not  again  be  pro- 
claimed. There  must  be  bitterness  of  heart  and  woe  of  soul 
when  the  rankling  thought  blasts  the  memory  and  whispers  of  the 
reputation  forfeited.  What !  I  who  am  a  Preacher  in  the  Middle 
Dutch  Church;  I  who  am  a  "  Gejitleman'' — the  very  Chesterfield 
of  "  virtuous  ladies ;  "  I  who  have  dubbed  myself  their  "  Writer" 
and  recommended  the  obscene  fiction— "  Lorette :"  I  who  am  fa- 
miliar with  the  "  Hebrew  and  Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost; "  I  who 
am  profoundly  versed  in  the  Grseca  Majora;  I,  I,  I — defeated, 
overthrown,  routed  in  proving  my  own  Protestant  Rule  of  Faith  ! ! ! 
Ha,  this  is  worse  than  a  pitch  and  brimstone  patch  on  my  hard 
earned  fame !  I  can  prove  my  rule  of  faith  from  the  Forum  of 
the  Protestant  Association,  from  the  pulpit  in  the  Chatham  street 
Chapel,  and  am  honored  with  the  cheers  of  my  faithful  Calvinists; 
they  say  my  assertio?is  are  logical  and  theological !  I  ca?i  prove 
my  dear  Protestant  Rule  of  Faith  and  descant  on  the  "  glorious 
liberty  of  conscience  secured  by  the  ever  blessed  Reformation," 
and  receive  the  approval  of  an  enlightened  flock,  and  the  consoling 
praise  of  my  "  virtuous  ladies."     I  can  prove  the  Bible  to  be  the 


291 

Word  of  God,  irerely  by  saying,  "  see  Bishop  A/hvhm,'''  and  my 
enlightenod  '\frirn</s''  are  lost  in  admiration  at  ihc  jn'ofnndity  of 
my  argnnient!  I  cdfi  ])rovc  the  Bible  to  he  the  Word  of  God  on 
the  external  evidence  of  miracle  performed  by  the  inspired  Wri- 
ters, and,  rt,wr/,  without  the  torture  of  contradiction,  that  "St. 
Austin  saw  some  miracles  Wrought  in  his  time  by  inspired  writers!" 
I  can  assert  that  "  not  one  sentence  of  Scripture  is  lost,"  though  St. 
Paul  has  written  epistles  to  the  ColossiansandCorintliians,  which 
now  do  not  exist,  yet  my  "  Christian  public"  do  not  doubt  the 
honest  truth  of  my  words  !  I  can  assert  the  Bible  is  ?iot  ol)scure, 
"  that  lie  may  run  who  readeth  it,"  and,  though  St.  Peter  says  it  is, 
and  that  ''ma?ii/  wrest  it  to  their  own  damnation,"  yet  I  am  treated 
by  the  members  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church  as  a  Preacher  hav- 
ing truth  on  my  lips,  I  am  honored  as  a  "  Genflema??,'^  mi/  authori- 
ty is  admitted,  and  St.  Peter's  rejected.  In  short,  I  may  repeat 
what  I  please,  invent  wdiat  I  please,  assert  what  T  please,  in  the 
Protestant  Association,  or  the  pulpit  of  my  own  Middle  Dutch 
Church,  and  I  am  believed,  admired,  honored, — but  those  villanous 
Priests  whom  I  "  challeivged,"  demand  proof  for  every  thing  ! 
I  cannot  indulge  in  the  most  innocent  asseriioii  but  a  proof  is  arro- 
gantly required,  and  this  proof,  forsooth,  must  be  clad  in  the  rusty 
and  old  fashioned  armour  called  by  schoolmen  a — syllogism.  If 
I  quote  a  line  from  Shakspeare,  that  villain  and  Deist,  Fergus 
Mac  Al])in,  and  his  infidel  brotherhood  of  the  Sheet  Anchor 
Tavern  chuckle  over  my  innocent  profanity,  and  tell  me  to  keep 
wdthin  the  limits  of  my  "  Hebrew  and  Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
They  exhibit  me  like  a  bear  at  a  stake,  pervert  my  own  Scripture 
t-ext,  and,  insultingly  say,  they  have  got  the  'Miook  in  my  nose." 
In  stating  my  rule  of  faith,  I  told  the  Priests  the  Scriptures  were 
not  obscure,  but  like  Deists  and  Infidels  they  mock  me,  and  ridi- 
cule my  excellent  system  of  "  parallel  passages ;  "  and,  in  my  very 
teeth,  affirm  it  is  obscure.  Evidently,  they  are  Deists.  I  proved 
the  Bible  to  be  the  Word  of  God,  but  they  say,  my  "^ee  Bishop 
JVewton,^^  is  no  logical  form  of  demonstration,  that  it  would  dis- 
grace a  school  boy.  I  believe  and  assert  it  is  logical,  and  their 
denial  of  its  great  merit  is  a  proof  of  their  Deism.  I  said  their  own 
writers  had  written  of  St.  Patrick  and  St.  Denis,  that  the  former 
sailed  to  Ireland  on  a  mill-stone,  and  the  latter  carried  his  head 
under  his  arm  after  having  been  beheaded!  This  they  have  also 
derided,  and  their  derision  is  a  plain,  downright,  proof  that  they 
are  Deists  ! ! !  What,  then,  am  I  to  do  ?  I  give  the  villanous  and 
Deistical  Priests  proofs,  but  they  flout  them ;  and  if  I  honor  them 
with  syllogysm  they  will  dispute  about  the  distrilj^ition  of  the  pro- 
positions, and  then  say,  I  have  not  established  my  rule  of  faith 
and  final   judge  of  controversies  !  !  ! 

Your  present  situation,  Rev.  Preacher,  claims  the  compassion 


292 

of  your  friends ;  and  had  you  conducted  the  present  controversy 
with  any  fairness  or  attention  to  the  common  forms  of  honesty, 
the  compassion  of  your  opponents  would,  ere  now,  have  eased  the 
tortures  you  endure  from  exhibition  before  your  "  Christian  pub- 
lic and  virtuous  ladies."  Had  you  displayed  a  sensitiveness  of  the 
degradation  you  had  incurred  by  proclaiming  a  thrasonical 
"  challenge"  to  the  Catholic  Priests  of  New  York,  and  your  ina- 
bihty  to  prove  or  defend  your  rule  of  faith,  your  opponents  would 
have  pitied  you,  and  on  the  publication  of  your  third  letter  would 
have  retired  from  a  Hterary  contest,  where,  it  was  evident,  victo- 
ry could  not  confer  honor.  But  you  assumed  a  knowledge  you 
did  not  possess,  and  this  assumed  knowledge  you  labored  to  pawn 
on  your  "  Christian  public"  by  every  form  of  slander  and  ribald 
invective  against  the  Catholic  religion.  Hence,  the  character 
which  you  have  enacted  since  the  commencement  of  the  present 
controversy  required  the  visitation  of  a  severe  justice.  You  have 
been  humbled,  your  assumption  of  learning  has  been  exposed, 
your  proofs  of  your  rule  of  faith  would  dishonor  a  school  boy, 
your  citations  from  CathoHc  authors  are  false,  you  introduced  a 
thousand  matters  irrelevant  to  the  real  question  at  issue,  you  ap- 
pealed to  the  base  passions  and  prejudices  of  the  ignorant  among 
the  Calvinistic  community,  you  shunned  the  "form  of  sound 
words,"  insult  has  been  your  substitute  for  argument, — it  is,  then, 
not  strange  that  your  mortifications  should  be  many,  and  the  tor- 
ture of  your  soul  galling  and  corrosive.  Your  letters  Nos.  9  and 
10,  are  the  fruits  of  this  torture. 

In  your  letter  No.  10,  there  are  but  two  items  that  merit  the 
most  trivial  notice;  one  referring  to  Luther's  rejection  of  the  epis- 
tle of  St.  James  ;  the  other  referring  to  the  Pope's  sanction  of  the 
Bible. 

You  say,  "  every  scholar  knows  that  Luther,  when  more  illu- 
mined from  monkish  ignorance,  did  admit  the  epistle  of  St.  James 
in  the  canon."  A  little  attention,  most  consistent  "  Writer,''  while 
we  '*  insert  the  hook  in  your  nose."  Submit  to  the  operation  with 
the  grace  becoming  a  "  Gentleman''  In  your  letter  No.  3,  3d 
column, page  78  Truth  Teller,  you  thus  write, — "You  gravely 
asserted  that  Luther  rejected  the  epistle  of  St.  James,  6z:c.  This 
I  SOLEMNLY  DENY ! "  Comparc  this  passage  with  your  words 
above  cited  from  your  last  letter,  and  mark  the  contradiction.  In 
your  letter  No.  3  you  "solemnly  deny"  that  Luther  rejected  the 
epistle  of  St.  James,  and,  in  your  last  letter  you  write,  that  ".Luther, 
when  more  illumined,  &c.  did  admit  it."  Now,  to  admit  a  thing 
when  more  illumined,  is  equivalent  to  saying  the  thing  admitted 
was  at  some  time  rejected.  Thou  Preacher  in  the  Middle  Dutch 
Church,  pray  to  your  interior  spirit  that  you  may  avoid  the  ruin- 
ous sin  of  contradiction.     Luther  admitted  and  did  not  admit  the 


293 

epistle  of  St.  James  !  This  is  the  inference  from  your  words.  You 
refer  to  Wolfius  and  Fabricius  for  the  existence  of  tlie  Epistle  in 
*^ Luther's  German  Bible."  You  should  have  written,  what  is 
named  Luther's  German  Bible.  The  distincrion,  it  is  hoped,  you 
comprehend.  In  the  latter  editions  of  liUtlier's  German  Bible  the 
epistle  of  St.  James  was  received  by  the  Lulhei-aiis,  but  even  in 
those  it  is  ranked  as  of  the  second  order  only.  Gerardes,  the  Lu- 
theran theologian  and  professor  at  Jena  in  the  year  1600,  writes 
in  his  work,  "  De  Locis  Tiieologicis,"  Loc.  1.  N.  271).  ful.  291, 
and  in  express  terms,  that,  in  the  later  editions  of  Luther's  Bible, 
the  sentence  was  omitted  in  which  Luther  insults  St.  James'  epis- 
tle with  the  word  chaffy,  (strammeam.)  Again  we  refer  as  a  proof 
of  our  assertion,  to  the  Wittcmberg  edition  of  Luther's  works 
published  under  the  care  of  Melancton,  the  friend  and  disciple  of 
Luther.  This  edition  was  commenced  in  the  year  1545,  a  short 
time  before  the  great  Reformer's  death.  We  refer  also  to  the 
Protestant  authorities,  Buck's  Theological  Dictionary,  and  Adam's 
"  View  of  all  religions,"  article  Lutherans.  If  the  Preacher  in 
the  Middle  Dutch  Church  will  consult  his  "honest  John  Wesley," 
he  will  find  a  slight  hint  on  this  topic. 

Your  translation  of  the  term  transeat,  Rev.  Preacher,  betrays 
an  ignorance  of  its  scholastic  meaning.  Take  it  again  to  your 
thoughts.  You  say  the  "  Doway  Bible  is  unauthorised  by  the 
Pope  and  Church;"  and  this  is  the  inference  you  deduce  from 
your  ignorance  of  the  scholastic  term  proposed  to  you  ! ! !  The 
Doway  Bible  printed  by  Mr.  John  Doyle  in  this  city  has  been  ap- 
proved by  the  Catholic  Bishop  of  New  York,  and  by  the  Bishop 
of  South  Carolina.  It  w^as  printed  from  a  copy  of  the  Doway 
Bible  approved  by  the  Catholic  Bishop  of  Dublin.  The  Bible 
printed  in  Philadelphia  was  approved  by  the  Bishop  of  that  city. 
The  Doway  Bible  in  England  is  approved  and  sanctioned  by  the 
Catholic  Bishops  in  England,  and  what  they  and  other  Bishops 
approve  and  sanction  is  authorised  by  the  Pope,  for  they,  immedi- 
ately under  the  Pope,  are  the  guardians  of  the  Catholic  religion. 
Will  you  again  repeat  to  the  Members  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church 
and  your  "Christian  public"  this  slander  and  falsehood?  We 
now  enter  on  your  Judge  of  Controversies. 

It  is  a  well  known  fact.  Rev.  Preacher,  that  from  the  days  of 
the  Apostles  to  the  present,  there  have  been  controversies  about 
the  true  and  genuine  sense  of  Scripture.  We  shall,  for  brevity 
sake,  pass  by  those  that  existed  in  the  time  of  Arius,  Macedonius, 
Donatus,  and  other  ancient  heretics,  and  will  notice  only  a  few 
out  of  the  many  that  have  arisen  since  the  days  of  your  "  ever 
glorious  Reformation." 

1st.  How  are  the  following  words  of  Christ  to  be  understood, — 
"This  is  mv  body?"     The  Lutherans  understand  them  thus, — 


294 

"  This  bread  is  my  body."  The  Calvinists  understand  them  in 
this  way, — "  This  bread  is  a  sign  of  my  body."  The  Catholics 
differ  from  both. 

2d.  How  are  we  to  understand  the  following  words  found  in 
the  3d  c.  of  John  v.  5,  "Unless  a  man  be  born  again  of  water  and 
the  spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."  The  Catho- 
lics and  Lutherans  understand  thereby  the  necessity  of  baptism 
with  water.     The  Calvinists  deny  this. 

3d.  What  was  the  meaning  of  Christ  when  he  spoke  these  words 
to  the  young  man  mentioned  by  St.  Matthew.  "  If  thou  wilt  en- 
ter into  life  keep  the  commandments."  Calvin  says  they  were 
spoken  in  jest.  The  Catholics  hold  they  have  been  spoken  in  ear- 
nest. 

4th.  Whether  Christ  binds  all  men  to  receive  the  chalice,  when 
he  says,  "  Drink  ye  all  of  this."  Calvin  says  "  there  is  a  decree 
from  the  eternal  God  that  all  drink."  Calv.  Inst.  c.  17.  hb.  4.  The 
Catholics  teach  that  the  w^ords,  "  drink  ye  all  of  this,"  were  ad- 
dressed to  the  Apostles,  for,  in  Mark  xiv.  24,  we  read  *'  and  they 
all  drank  of  it." 

5th.  Whether  the  words  of  St.  Paul  to  Timothy,  1  c.  2  v.  5, 
*'  there  is  one  Mediator  of  God  and  men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus," 
excluded  the  innovation  and  intercession  of  Saints  as  Dr.  Brown- 
lee  and  our  adversaries  affirm,  or  do  not  exclude  the  invocation 
and  intercession  of  Saints  as  the  CathoHcs  affirm?  They,  evident- 
ly, do  not  condemn  the  invocation  of  Saints  upon  earth  :  otherwise 
the  Apostles  would  not  have  said,  "  Brethren  pray  for  us."  1  Thess. 
3,  25. 

Now,  logical  Preacher  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church,  it  is  evi- 
dent, that,  in  these  and  in  similar  controversies,  we  must  have 
recourse  to  some  Judge,  and  that  the  Scriptures  cannot  be  our 
judge,  we  prove  by  two  arguments. 

First,  the  judge  ought  to  pronounce  sentence,  in  such  manner, 
that  the  litigating  parties  may  understand  it;  otherwise  his  sen- 
tence would  be  to  no  purpose ;  but  the  Scripture,  when  its  sense 
is  obscure  and  doubtful,  cannot  so  plainly  pronounce  sentence  that 
it  may  be  plainly  understood  by  the  contending  parties.  For,  if 
it  clearly  pronounce  sentence,  its  sense  would  be  plain  and  mani- 
fest, which  is  contrary  to  the  supposition.  Therefore,  in  such  a 
case  the  Scriptures  cannot  be  a  judge.  Preacher  Brownlee  m.ay 
tell  us,  and  has  told  us  already,  that  though  the  sense  of  Scrip- 
ture may  be  obscure  in  one  place,  it  may  not  be  obscure  in  ano- 
ther place,  and  that  by  the  place  which  is  clear  the  Scripture 
may  judge  of  the  place  which  is  obscure.  But,  Rev.  Doctor,  if 
this  be  the  case,  why  is  there  not  a  termination  to  the  controver- 
sies that  exist  between  yourselves  ?  Why  do  not  the  Lutherans 
and  Calvinists,  when  they  dispute  about  some  obscure  passage^ 


295 

run  immediately  to  another  which  is  plain  I  And  if  they  do,  why 
is  there  not  an  end  to  their  strife  /  Farther  allow  us  to  tell  you, 
that  it  is  one  thing  to  say  the  words  of  the  Scripture  are  plain, 
and  another  thing  to  say  the  sense  of  Scri])turc  is  plain.  Mark 
this  most  erudite  and  logical  theologue.  The  })lainness  of  the 
words  depends  on  the  knowledge  of  grammar,  but  the  sense  of  the 
Scripture  de[)ends  on  the  intention  and  counsel  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  you  will  confess  that  a  man  may  be  perfect  in  the  knowledge 
of  his  granunar  and  yet  very  ignorant  of  the  meaning  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  It  may  happen  that  the  words  of  the  8crij)ture  may  be 
very  plain,  yet  the  sense  of  the  words  as  intended  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  may  be  obscure ;  for  example,  the  words  of  Christ,  "  this 
is  my  body!  this  is  my  blood,"  may  be  understood  by  all  men, 
whether  Christians,  Jews,  Turks,  or  Gentiles,  in  their  grammati- 
cal sense,  but  the  controversies  as  to  their  meaning  are  endless 
among  Christians.  We  may  say  the  same  of  the  words  in  St. 
John — "  Mary  Magdalen  cometh  early  to  the  monument,  when  it 
was  yet  dark ; "  and  in  those  of  St.  Mark,  "  she  came  to  the 
monument  the  sun  being  risen."  Nothing  can  be  plainer  than  the 
words  now  quoted  ;  yet,  because  the  first  seem  to  be  contrary  to 
the  second,  it  may  be  doubted,  and  with  reason,  what  the  proper 
sense  of  them  is,  and  how  they  may  agree  with  one  another.  Does 
it  not  often  happen.  Rev.  Sir,  that  one  party  thinks  a  Scripture 
text  clear  and  manifest,  which  the  other  holds  to  be  obscure  and 
intricate?  What  is  to  be  done  in  such  a  case?  What  judge  is 
to  be  admitted  ?  The  Scripture  certainly  cannot  be  the  judge, 
the  controversy  being  about  the  meaning  of  it.  Must  not  another 
judge  be  looked  for?  For  example ;  we  and  the  Calvinists  dispute 
about  the  descent  of  Christ  into  hell,  which  they  deny.  We  main- 
tain that  he  did  descend  into  hell,  and  for  our  belief  we  adduce  a 
two  fold  testimony.  The  one  is  from  the  creed  "  he  descended 
into  hell,"  the  other  is  from  the  Acts,  "thou  wilt  not  leave  my 
soul  in  hell."  We  say  that  both  these  testimonies  are  clear  and 
evident.  The  Calvinists  deny  both,  and,  with. their  obscure  inter- 
pretation, make  both  places  most  obscure.  They  interpret  the 
first  in  this  sense,  "he  descended  into  hell,  that  is,  he  sufiered  on 
the  cross  most  cruel  and  horrible  torments  of  a  damned  and  forlorn 
man,  that  oppressed  with  anguish  he  was  forced  to  crv  out  "My 
God  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me."  They  take  the  latter  in  this 
sense,  "  Thou  shalt  not  leave  my  carcase  in  the  grav^e."  Calv. 
Ub.  2,  inst.  c,  IG,  Catechism  Hcidlebcrg  (jues.  44.  Now  what  is 
to  be  done  here?  To  what  judge  shall  we  appeal  ?  If  we  ask 
counsel  of  the  Scripture,  it  will  merely  repeat  what  it  said  before ; 
it  will  not  add  one  iota  to  that  which  is  already  written.  But 
the  controversy  is  about  the  meaning  of  what  the  Scripture  said 
before,  and  this  controversy  can  never  be  ended  by  what  has  been 


296 

already  said.  If,  then,  even  during  the  existence  of  this  contro- 
versy, the  Scripture  exist  in  the  same  identical  terms,  is  it  not 
clear  that  the  controversy  can  never  be  decided  by  the  Scripture, 
and  that  we  must,  of  necessity,  have  recourse  to  some  other  judge! 

We  and  our  adversaries  agree,  that  there  is  no  true  baptism 
without  the  form^  "  I  baptise  thee  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  GhosV  But,  if  some  one  should  deny  this 
to  be  the  sense  of  the  words  of  the  Redeemer,  "  teach  ye  all  na- 
tions, baptizing  them,"  &c.  &c.,  and  should  say  that  the  form  of 
baptism  above  cited,  is  not  necessary,  but  that  an  inward  will  of 
baptising  in  the  name  of  the  holy  Trinity  is  sufficient,  how  should 
he  be  confuted?  Could  this  be  done  by  the  Scripture ?  Never, 
seeing  that  in  the  words  of  the  Redeemer,  there  is  no  vocal  invo- 
cation of  the  blessed  Trinity  said  to  be  necessary.  How  then  do 
we  know  that  this  ought  to  be  the  form  of  baptism.  "  I  baptize 
thee  in  the  name,"  &c.?  You  only  know  it  from  the  practice  and 
tradition  of  the  Church,  and  if  you  reject  these,  you  can  never 
overcome  your  adversary,  who  may  deny  the  necessity  of  this 
form,  "  I  baptize  thee,"  &c. 

Christ  says,  "  unless  a  man  be  born  again  of  water  and  the 
spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."  This  place 
according  to  the  true  and  lawful  sense  is,  understood  of  the 
necessity  of  baptism  with  water,  as  the  Lutherans  themselves 
confess  •  yet,  the  Calvinists  deny  it !  How  can  they  be  refuted 
by  the  Lutherans?  Not  by  the  Scripture,  for  although  water  be 
named  in  the  text,  yet  it  is  not  so  named,  as  that  it  should  be  un- 
derstood of  true  and  natural  water;  for  in  another  place,  it  is 
called  fire,  as  in  Luke  3  v.  16,  "He  shall  baptize  you  in  spirit 
and  fire,"  and  yet  it  is  not  understood  of  true  fire.  Therefore, 
how  does  it  appear,  that,  in  the  former  place,  true  w^ater  is  to  be 
understood,  or  how  will  the  Lutherans  prove  it  against  the  Calvin- 
ists ?  Not  by  any  other  means  than  by  the  practice,  order  and 
tradition  of  the  (church. 

Again,  Christ,  in  the  institution  of  the  blessed  sacrament,  said, 
"  eat  afid  drink ; "  and  in  the  washing  of  feet  he  said,  "  And  you 
ought  to  wash  one  another's  feet."  Our  adversaries  say,  that,  in 
the  first,  there  is  a  precept,  but  not  in  the  latter  words.  We  ask 
how  are  they  certain  of  this  ?  Why  do  they  think  themselves 
bound  to  receive  the  Sacrament  under  both  kinds  and  not  obliged 
to  wash  one  another's  feet?  They  certainly  cannot  prove  this 
from  the  words  of  Scripture,  for  these  words,  "  eat  and  drink," 
seem  to  indicate  no  other  meaning,  than  if  a  friend  should  say  to 
his  guests,  "  eat  and  drink,"  without  intending  to  oblige  to  eat  or 
to  drink — on  the  other  hand,  the  words  "  You  ought  to  wash  the 
feet  of  one  another,"  strongly  import  a  precept,  and  are  as  impera- 
tive as  these  words  of  a  master  to  his  servants,  "  You  must  do 


297 

that  work."  How  then  do  our  adversaries  know  that  these  words 
do  not  oblige  them  to  wash  the  feet  of  one  another,  seeing  that 
the  words  themselves  plainly  import  an  obligation  l  They  know 
this  only  by  the  tradition  of  the  church.  For  the  church  never 
looked  on  this  washing  as  necessary,  w^hich  would  not  have  been 
the  case  had  she  thought  that  she  was  obliged  to  it,  by  the  com- 
mand of  Christ.  We  repeat,  Rev.  Doctor,  the  Scripture  may  be 
considered,  1st  according  to  the  outward  and  bare  letter,  and  2d 
according  to  the  sense  intended  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  But,  in  nei- 
ther of  these  two  ways,  can  it  be  the  Judge  of  Controversy.  Not 
in  the  former,  as  we  have  fully  proved  that  the  "  letter  killeth ; " 
nor  is  it  the  judge  in  the  second  way,  viz.  according  to  the  sense 
intended  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  because  the  Scripture  is  often  so  ob- 
scure and  doubtful,  that  there  is  need  of  some  other  judge  to  de- 
fine its  true  meaning.  Thus,  Rev.  and  consistent  Preacher,  do 
we  "  keep  the  hook  in  your  nose,"  and  exhibit  you  to  the  Chris- 
tian and  reflecting  public,  as  a  mere  retailer  of  puerile  assertion 
and  malicious  falsehood.  You  are  a  defeated  man,  and  we  assure 
you  that  to  us,  after  the  pains  we  have  taken  to  bring  you  to  so- 
ber thinking,  it  is  no  consolation  to  hear  every  one  capable  of 
judging  of  our  labors  saying,  "nee  habet  victorias  laudem." 

Your  rule  leads  to  downright  Deism,  since  it  cannot  estabhsh 
neither  the  canonicity,  nor  the  authenticity,  nor  the  divinity  of 
the  Scriptures.  Hear  it,  ye  Christian  people,  Preacher  Brownlee 
says  that  the  Scripture  is  his  only  Rule  of  Faith.  But  the  Scrip- 
ture cannot  prove  either  the  canonicity,  or  the  authenticity,  or 
the  inspiration  of  its  own  books ;  therefore,  our  consistent  theolo- 
gian cannot  believe  in  the  canonicity,  authenticity,  divinity,  or 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures ;  therefore,  his  rule  makes  him  a 
Deist ! ! !  After  this  what  will  his  "  virtuous  ladies"  think  of  him  ? 
We  suspect,  that,  on  serious  reflection,  they  will  give  the  Priests 
credit  for  sound  logic  and  Theology,  and  thank  them  for  rescuing 
the  Scriptures  and  Christianity  from  a  Rule  which  abandons  them 
to  the  derision  of  the  scofler,  the  Deist  and  the  Infidel. 

Ere  we  conclude,  the  indulgence  of  our  readers  is  claimed  for 
a  few  remarks  on  the  notorious  tenth,  the  deep  toned  growl  of 
Calvinistic  peace  and  love  uttered  by  the  religious  minister  who 
vaunts  familiarity  with  an  interior  spirit,  intimacy  with  the  "  He 
brew  and  Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  and  fellowship  with  "  highly- 
intelligent  and  virtuous  ladies."  For  shift  and  subterfuge,  contra- 
diction and  falsehood,  joined  to  ungentlemanlike  language,  bold 
calumnies,  and  rancorous  malice,  it  stands  unrivalled.  So  much 
of  these  bitter  and  damning  elements  we  never  expected  to  meet 
with  in  any  human  being,  much  less  in  a  predestined  clergyman 
treating  of  the  concerns  of  religion.  Had  he  been  sincere  in  his 
38 


298 

**  challenge"  to  discuss  those  matters  connected  with  internal 
things,  his  motto  would  have  been, 

Let  no  passion  stir,- 


Wake  all  to  reason,  let  her  reign  alone." 

But  reason,  where  is  it?  Any  thing  rather  than  reason  has  been 
his  weapon  in  controversial  fight.  Could  it  have  been  anticipated 
that,  in  the  defence  and  probation  of  his  Rule  of  Faith  and  Judge 
of  Controversies,  he  would  thus  have  exhibited  his  native  dispo- 
sitions, no  consideration  should  have  prevailed  over  us  to  induce 
an  acceptance  of  his  gasconade  invitation  to  polemic  contest : — - 
in  peace  and  in  war  we  would  have  shunned  him  with  as  much 
prudential  watch  over  our  safety  as  the  '^  virtuous  ladies^^  who 
practice  the  Preacher's  rules  of  Rhetoric  while  vending  the  inha- 
bitants ot  the  deep  at  Billingsgate.  If  assertion  be  proof,  and  vitu- 
peration and  falsehood  defence,  of  his  Rule  of  Faith  and  Judge  of 
Controversy,  they  have  been  amply  proved  and  heroically  defend- 
ed. Our  remarks  on  those  vital  topics  are  now  before  the  pubhc; 
and  aware  of  its  decision,  for  it  has  already  been  expressed,  we 
again  repeat  the  propositions  stated  in  our  letters  No.  1,  2,  3.  They 
have  not  yet  been  proved ! 

1st.  How  does  the  preacher  in  the  Middle  Dutch  Church  know 
the  Bible  to  be  the  Word  of  God  1 

2d.  How  does  he  know  which  books  were  written  by  divine 
inspiration  ? 

3d.  Does  the  Bible  contain  the  whole  of  the  Word  of  God,  or 
does  it  not  ? 

Sufficient  proof  has  been  given  in  our  letters,  that  Preacher 
Brownlee's  Protestant  Rule  of  Faith,  cannot  be  a  safe  guide  to  a 
future  world; — it  establishes  no  BAbis  for  Divine  Faith; — if  follow- 
ed, it  MUST  GUIDE  to  Dcism  and  Infidelity. 

What  shall  be  the  next  subject  of  discussion  between  us  and 
Preacher  Brownlee?  This  question  is  answered  by  ascertaining 
which  is  the  next  topic  in  the  logical  order  of  dependancy.  Can 
this  be  discovered  ? 

When  Preacher  Brownlee  proclaimed  his  "  challenge,"  he 
was,  or  should  have  been,  influenced  by  the  sole  desire  of  eliciting 
truth.  He  was,  perhaps,  anxious  to  convert  the  Catholic  Bishop 
and  Priests  to  Calvinism.  We,  of  course,  the  objects  of  his  reli- 
gious zeal,  were  equally  anxious  to  ascertain  the  basis  on  which 
his  creed  was  founded.  This  led  to  discussion  on  his  Rule  of 
Faith.  How  it  has  fared  the  Preacher's  No.  10  is  the  best  evi- 
dence. Having  disposed  of  his  Rule  of  Faith,  or,  in  other  words, 
the  foundation  of  his  religion,  the  next  topic  evidently  is,  What 
are  the  articles  of  creed  determined  by  his  Rule  of  Faith,  which 
must  be  believed  in  order  to  secure  salvation?     Will  the  Preach- 


299 

er  refuse  to  enter  on  this  matter  (  If  he  do  he  will  act  irrational- 
ly. We  wish  to  be  ilkimined.  '*  The  Bible  alone,''  he  says,  "  is 
the  Rule  of  Faith  of  every  Protestant;" — "the  Bible,"  he  affirms, 
"  contains  the  whole  religion  of  the  Protestant."  If  we  should 
adopt  Calvinism  for  our  religion,  what,  then,  are  the  ?icccssary 
articles  of  faith  expressed  in  the  Bible,  and  which  must  be  believed, 
that  we  may  secure  our  final  salvation !  This  is  the  next  ques- 
tion in  the  logical  order  of  dependancy.  It  is  one  of  great  and 
vital  importance.  Should  the  Preacher  in  the  Middle  Dutch 
Church  decline  discussion  on  this  subject,  our  direct  controversy 
with  HIM  is  terminated.  If  he  enter  on  it,  he  is  requested  to  give 
proof,  not  assertion,  argument,  not  ribald  declamation,  truth,  not 
falsehood.  We  are  his  courteous  servants, 

JOHN  POWER, 


New  York,  June  25th,  1833. 


THOMAS  C.  LEVINS. 


JDt\  Brownlee^s  IjCtler^  J\*o.  11. 
TO  DRS.  POWER,  VARELA^  &  MR.  LEVINS. 

"  Gia  Roma,  hor  Babilonia  falsa,  e  ria,  &c. 
'*  Formerly  Rome,  now  Babylon,  false  and  guilty, 
Hell  of  the  living  !     It  will  be  a  great  miracle, 
If  Christ  is  not  angry  with  thee  at  last !" 

Petrarch:  tom.  4,  p.  149. 

Gentlemen r — In  your  last  letter  you  have  exhibited  a  paralysis; 
and  have  almost  given  up  the  ghost.  I  have  gone  over  your 
epistle  twice ;  and  I  deliberately  affirm,  that  no  man,  Protestant 
or  Catholic,  can  discover  one  new  idea:  or  an  approach  to  a  re- 
ply to  any  one  of  my  arguments,  against  your  anti-christian  rule, 
and  your  fanaticism. 

In  the  close,  you  repeat,  in  a  condensed  form,  the  one  all  per- 
vading, and  one  only  solitary  idea,  which  has  ever  yet  appeared 
in  your  ten  letters,  it  is  this — "  Preacher  Brownlee's  Protestant 
Rule"  that  is  to  say,  God's  inspired  word,  and  the  Almighty  speak- 
ing to  us  in  it,  "  cannot  be  a  safe  guide  to  the  future  world :  his 
Protestant  Rule,"  that  is,  the  inspired  Scripture  and  the  Almighty 
speaking  in  them  to  us, — "if  followed,  must  guide  to  Deism  and  in- 
fidelity !  "  Thus  then,  you  dehberately  affirm,  for  the  tenth  time, 
that  God  speaking  to  man  in  his  own  word  "  must  guide  to  Deism 
and  infidelity!" 

In  the  name  of  all  that  is  sacred,  when  will  these  Romish  Priests 
put  an  end  to  this  shocking  evidence  of  their  unblushing  Deism 
and  blasphemy  ?  In  soberness,  I  ask  the  Christian  to  open  his 
Bible  at  the  36th  chapter  of  Isaiah,  and  read  the  speech  of  the 


300 

blaspheming  Assyrian,  Rabshakeh,  and  then  say,  if  he  can  there 
find  the  tenth  part  of  this  impious  mockery  of  God's  Holy  Bible, 
and  God's  name ! 

I  have  drawn  you  into  the  net,  at  last,  in  the  affair  of  the  Do- 
way  Bible.  You  affirm,  that  your  "  bishop's"  permission  is  "  pon- 
tifical," authority !  With  men  thus  reckless  of  truth,  I  assert  that 
no  measured  terms  can  be  observed !  I  reply,  you  affirm  what 
you  all  know  to  be  falsehood !  I  shall  prove  the  falsehood.  Does 
any  priest  in  his  senses  venture  to  affirm  that  "  a  bishop's"  authori- 
ty is  "  the  Pope's  authority  ?"  You  know  that  no  bishop  can  give 
pontifical  authority  to  any  book.  And  your  leading  men  in  Britain 
have  pronounced  that  a  rALSEHooD  which  you  have  asserted.  I 
now  give  you  the  names:  Dr.  Poynter,  titular  bishop  of  London, 
declared  on  his  oath,  with  solemnity,  before  the  committee  of  the 
British  House  of  Commons,  that,  "there  is  no  English  version  of 
the  Bible  at  all  authorised  by  the  See  of  Rome."  And  Dr.  Troy, 
your  Archbishop  of  Dublin  has  published  under  his  proper  signa- 
ture, and  Dr.  Doyle,  on  his  solemn  oath,  that  "the  notes  of  the 
Doway  Bible  are  of  no  authority  whatever !  "  Thus  your  lead- 
ing men  in  Britain,  give  you  the  lie !  And  thus,  there  is  most 
satisfactory  evidence  that  the  "  Doway  Bible"  is  a  mere  hoax, 
and  an  imposture,  palmed  on  the  simplicity  of  Protestants !  And 
this,  gentleman,  each  of  you  all,  know  very  well ! 

I  now  go  on  with  my  exposure  of  your  church's  superstition  and 
imposture. 

Charles  Butler,  Esq.  the  author  of  "  The  Book  of  the  Catholic 
Church,"  says : — "  May  I  not  ask  if  it  be  in  fact  just  or  generous 
to  harrass  the  present  Catholics  with  the  weakness  of  the  ancient 
writers  of  their  communion ;  and  to  attempt  to  render  their  reli- 
gion and  themselves  odious,  by  these  unceasing,  and  offensive  pe- 
titions ! "  This  has  been  also  said  by  our  Priests  in  their  letter  9th. 

I  reply,  were  these  superstitions,  and  miracles,  and  this  fanati- 
cism, pubhcly  disowned  and  condemned  by  your  Church,  you 
should  never  hear  of  them  from  us.  But  all  these  false  miracles 
and  endless  superstitions  are  printed  in  your  "  Breviary,"  used 
weekly  in  your  worship:  they  are  read  in  Latin  weekly;  applaud- 
ed, defended,  prayed  over,  and  believed  by  you,  and  owned  by 
C.  Butler  himself;  even  while  he  wrote  the  above  sentence ! — 
Your  Popes  applaud  them,  and  on  the  faith  of  these  miracles  they 
canonized  the  Saints  which  you  worship !  Your  bishops  own 
and  applaud  them,  and  pronounce  their  anathema  on  all  those 
who  disbelieve  any  one  part,  or  parcel  of  all  the  fanaticism  which 
I  quoted.  Only, — they  are  all  in  Latin !  Locked  up  are  they, 
from  common  view  and  public  execration,  in  Latin !  Every 
Saint's  day,  Drs.  Power,  and  Varela  and  Mr.  Levins,  pray  over 
these  Latin  superstitions,  and   fanaticism,  and  miracles:    even 


301 

while  they  publicly  call  them  "  silly,  dreamy  legends ! "  You 
dare  not  deny  your  "  Breviary  !"  You  cannot  disown  your  fa- 
mous book,  the  *'Acta  Sanctorum."  You  may  choose  thus  to 
act  the  knave  !  But  we  have  the  books, — your  pontifically  ap- 
proved works,  in  our  hands,  to  expose  your  knavery :  and  hold 
you  up  to  public  scorn!  Now,  I  go  on,  and  repeat  my  earnest 
challenge  to  you  all,  to  point  out  one  false  quotation  from  your 
books,  in  my  past  letters;  or  in  what  I  am  going  to  gratify  you, 
by  now  quoting. 

In  addition  to  my  former  three  observations :  I  have  now  to 
state,  4th.  That  the  superstition  of  the  Romish  Church  confirms 
the  melancholy  evidence  of  her  utter  apostacy  from  the  only 
RULE  OF  faith.  "  Supcrstitiou"  says  Bishop  Hall,  "  is  godless  re- 
ligion :  devout  impiety :  the  superstitious  is  fond  of  observation  : 
servile  in  fear  ;  he  w^orships  God,  but  as  he  lists :  he  offers  to  God 
what  he  asks  not;  and  all  but  what  he  should  give;  and  makes 
more  sin  than  do  the  ten  commandments  !"  In  your  Church,  gen 
tlemen,  there  is  every  gradation  of  this  vice,  from  the  sober  bur- 
lesque, even  to  the  deep  tragic  flagellation,  and  penance.  It  is 
one  mass  of  superstition  ! 

For  instance,  it  is  a  part  of  your  religion,  to  baptize  bells,  be- 
fore they  are  set  up.  I  have  before  me  some  instructive  instan- 
ces of  this :  particularly  those  that  took  place  of  the  latest  dates, 
in  Canada  and  Naples.  A  gaudy  procession  comes  into  the  church, 
with  a  priestly  attire  of  motley  colors;  like  some  equipped  buffoons 
for  the  stage:  a  god  father  and  a  god  mother  stand  up  by  the 
Bell,  and  take  the  vows  !  The  dumb  thing  is  wetted  in  the  form 
of  a  cross :  then  crossed  with  "  holy  chrism,"  while  the  lips  of  the 
priest  taking  the  awful  name  of  the  Trinity  in  vain,  baptizes  it  in 
the  most  holy  name  !  The  priest  then  gives  three  strokes  with 
the  clapper :  the  god  parents  do  the  same ;  and  then  solemnly 
pronounce  the  Bell's  name  !  [See  No.  73  Glasg.  Protest.]  This 
farce,  the  disgrace  of  our  enlightened  days,  is  made,  moreover, 
to  subserve  the  cause  of  a  more  degrading  superstition.  The 
sound  of  these  babtized  Bells,  as  you  priests  solemnly  teach  your 
people,  fails  not  to  disperse  devils  lurking  in  the  air ;  and  makes 
them  scamper  oft^with  incredible  celerity:  it  also,  as  you  grave- 
ly teach,  brings  souls  out  of  purgatory!  All  Saints' day,  is  in 
Canada,  and  in  all  Catholic  lands,  a  great  day  of  ringing  these 
"  baptized  bells"  and  thereby  bringing  souls  out  of  purgatorial 
pains  ! 

The  Priest's  dresses  also  teem  with  superstition.     Two  thin^^s 
go  to  secure  the  divine   efficacy  of  your  rites  and   ceremonies. 
One  is  the  priest's  intention  of  soul  to  do  "  what  the  Church"  in- 
ends ;    the  other  is  his  consecrated  dress.     Were  priest  to  offici- 
ate without  the  appropriate  garb,   and  did  that  want   the  "  holy 


302 

shape,"  and  "  the  appropriate  hoU  color,"  for  the  day  and  occa- 
sion, the  priest  and  laity  would  be  in  a  nnortal  sin !  Without  the 
orthodox  shape  and  color,  they  cannot  be  accepted  by  the  Al- 
mighty ;  bat  it  is  of  no  consequence  whether  they  have  religion, 
or  even  the  comimon  decency  of  morals !  All  your  religion  is  in 
the  outer  man;  and  in  ceremony,  and  in  the  color,  and  shape  of 
priestly  dress ! 

The  divine  efficacy  of  prayers  uttered  in  the  Latin  tongue, 
which  none  of  the  laity  understand,  is  another  part  of  your  super- 
stition. You  deem  it  not  at  all  necessary  that  any  .one  of  your 
people  offer  up,  in  his  soul,  one  vow,  or  prayer,  with  the  under- 
standing. Indeed  how  can  he  ?  He  understands  not  one  idea 
which  you  utter.  The  people  are  thus  made  a  mere  tool  of:  they 
act  without  heart  and  understanding.  They  do  not  know  one 
prayer.  You  mutter  barbarous  Latin  wofds  over  them  !  These 
are'viewed  merely  as  a  charm;  a  hocus  pocus  from  the  lips  of  sa- 
cerdotal legerdemain !  This  nurses  the  ignorance  of  an  immo- 
vable superstition.  The  priest  "  negotiates"  the  whole  work  of 
salvation  for  sinners,  who  go  on  in  a  course  of  impious  morals : 
and,  at  the  last,  the  priestly  embassy,  they  are  told,  is  honored  in 
heaven :  and  the  souls  are  saved  by  the  virtue  of  outward  mum- 
mery ;  and,  provided  all  the  Church's  dues  are  paid,  their  debts  in 
heaven  are  settled ! 

Farther,  the  whole  appendages  of  the  mass  are  one  train  of  su- 
perstition. I  allude,  mainly  at  present,  to  your  prayers  offered 
up  by  your  pious  priests  and  flocks,  to  saint  sacrament.  For  be 
it  known,  that  the  sacrament  is  converted  into  an  idol,  and  to 
Saint  Sacrament  devout  prayers  are  offered.  The  Litany  of  this 
saint  is  too  long  to  be  quoted :  yet  I  cannot  resist  the  desire  of 
presenting  a  specimen  of  these  prayers.  "  Bread  corn  of  the  elect, 
have  mercy  on  us !  Wine  budding  from  virgins,  have  mercy  on 
us  !  Fat  bread,  and  the  delight  of  kings,  have  mercy  on  us ! 
Most  pure  table,  have  mercy  on  us  1  Cup  of  blessing,  have  mercy 
on  us !"  And  so  on.  All  these  prayers  are  offered,  while  you 
bow  down  to  the  bread  and  chalice.  I'hat  is,  they  are  offered  up 
to  the  bread  and  cup !  Here  is  a  specimen  of  enchantment,  and 
protency  of  charms,  which  throw  into  the  shade,  and  fairly  eclipse 
all  Pagan  superstition !  "  For  who  ever  heard,"  says  Cicero, 
"  of  a  people  making  a  God  of  that  which  they  eat,  and  then 
praying  to  it  1 "  and  1  add — "  and  then  eating  it  up  ?  " 

The  use  of  incense  is  a  fragment  of  old  pagan  superstition.  This 
characteristic  of  Popery  strikes  all  who  enter  a  chapel :  it  is  pour- 
ed forth  from  the  altar,  and  the  whimsical  play  of  swinging  the 
censor.  In  old  CathoUc  lands  the  images  of  the  Romish  saints 
are  as  black  as  the  pagan  saints  were  in  their  day,  by  this  inces- 
sant smoke.    Now,  you  do  not  use  the  incense  after  the  custom 


303 

of  the  abrogated  ceremonial  law  oi"  Moses.  Your  custom  is 
purely  pagan.  And  had  you  lived  in  the  times  of  pagan  Rome, 
none  of  you,  verily,  would  have  been  martyrs,  and  none  of  you 
even  deemed  to  be  Christians  !  For  our  ancestors  of  the  pure 
primitive  Christians,  deemed  it  strictly  ])agan :  and  it  was  even 
a  test  resorted  to  by  the  heathen  to  entrap  a  Christian.  If  any 
one  consented  to  burn  incense,  he  hereby  avowed  his  relin(|uish- 
ment  of  Christianity;  and  he  was  let  go  as  a  traitor  from  Christ, 
with  the  applause  of  the  heathen  ! 

The  use  of  holy  water  is  another  of  your  prominent  supersti- 
tions. At  the  door  of  the  chapel,  the  priest  sprinkles  you:  or, 
each  one  helps  himself  from  the  "  holy"  reservoir.  This  is  noto- 
riously borrowed  from  the  pagan  worship.  "  The  Amula,"  says 
Montfaucon,  "  was  the  vase  of  water  which  stood  at  the  door  of 
the  heathen  temple  for  the  same  purpose.  Hence  its  origin  is,  to 
say  the  least,  much  more  respectable  than  that  of  the  other  rites, 
as  I  showed  in  my  letter  IX.  La  Cerdas,  in  his  notes  on  the  well 
known  passage  of  Virf^il  relative  to  sprinkling,  says  "  Hence  is 
derived  the  custom  of  Holy  Church,  to  provide  holy  water,  at  the 
entrance  ol  the  chapel,  &c."  Even  the  mixture  is'pagan:  it  was 
that  of  salt  and  water!  And  here  I  remark  again,  that  had  you 
lived  in  Apostolical  and  early  times,  your  present  superstition 
would  have  saved  you  from  martyrdom  for  Christ :  and  saved 
you  even  from  the  charge  of  being  deemed  Christians.  Dr. 
Middleton  has  shown  that  this  was  made  a  test  of  Christian  dis- 
cipleship:  if  they  would  sprinkle,  they  were  spared  the  pains  of 
death:  if  they  refused  sprinkhng  they  suffered.  And  Julian 
Apostate  caused  the  food  of  Christians  (obe  sprinkled  with  "holy 
water;  "  and  they  behoved  either  to  eat  it,  or  starve.  The  reso- 
lute disciple  sooner  than  countenance  this  infamous  fragment  of 
pagan  abomination,  chose  to  starve.  You  now  see,  in  what  com- 
pany you  have  placed  yourselves.  [Middleton  p.  136-140.  Glas. 
Prot.  No.  68.] 

Your  superstition  has  also  engendered  a  great  many  charms, 
and  incantations.  You  are  noted  for  this.  No  thoroughlv  devout 
Roman  Catholic  will  stir  abroad  until  he  has  crossed  his  shoulders 
and  face:  nor  converse  with  heretics,  nor  read  their  books,  until 
he  has  crossed  himself,  and  invoked  his  guardian  Saint.  The 
whole  of  your  doctrine  of  Saints'  relics,  is  based  on  this  supersti- 
tion. They  are  charms  to  keep  devils  and  "bad  luck,"  away  from 
the  simple  faithful.  You  traffic  very  much  in  the  article  of  the 
"  AGNUS  DEI,"  which  is  made  o{  wax,  balsam,  and  chrism,  with 
the  image  of  "  the  Lamb  of  God,"  on  it.  These  Agni  Dei  are 
consecrated  by  the  Pope  usually  in  the  first  year  of  his  ghostly 
reign.  And  it  is  no  trifle  that  will  keep  the  faithful  from  having 
them,  or  a  chip  of  them.     Whoever   wears  them  about  them,  b% 


304 

you  caretuUy  teach  your  godly  flock,  is  "  safe  from  all  spiritual 
and  temporal  foes:  from  all  perils  from  fire  and  water  :  and  from 
sudden  and  unshrieved  death.  They  drive  away  all  devils,  and 
succour  women  in  child  birth :  nay,  they  wash  away  all  old  sins, 
and  give  new  grace.  In  evidence  of  this  "  See  Franc.  Cost, 
Christ.  Instit.  Lib.  4.  cap.  12.  And  Devotion  and  office  of  the 
sacred  heart  of  Christ,"     p.  375.  Cramp.  364. 

In  the  French  service  for  "  Saint  Sacrament,"  I  see  a  copy  of 
"  two  prayers  which  were  found  in  Christ's  sepulchre  at  Jerusa- 
lem." And  whoever  wears  copies  of  these  about  his  body,  is  per- 
fectly safe  against  all  the  wiles  of  the  devil,  all  storms,  thunder, 
and  lightning,  and  sudden  death  !    [Gl.  Prot.  No.  60.] 

Now%  I  quote  not  private  superstitions,  such  as  the  making  a 
sovereign  cure  for  diseases,  as  is  done  in  Ireland,  out  of  a  piece 
of  clay  taken  from  a  priest's  grave,  and  steeped  in  water ;  nor 
the  famous  "  Italian  soup,"  so  late  as  1817,  made  with  a  bit  of  the 
shirt  of  Cardinal  Gonsalvi,  boiled  in  it,  to  remedy  all  pains  and 
evils,  made  and  gravely  believed  in  head  quarters, — namely  at 
Rome.  [See  GaUifico's  Letters,  published  in  London,  1812,  by 
John  Murray:  andGlasg.  Prot.  No.  148.]  The  superstitions  which 
I  have  quoted,  are  solemnly  authorised  in  your  books,  as  part  of 
your  belief,  and  religion. 

Another  peculiarity  of  your  superstition  is,  the  use  of  lamps  and 
wax  candles,  in  open  day,  and  as  a  part  of  your  holy  rites.  The 
origin  of  this  must  strike  every  one,  well  read  in  the  classics. 
The  Pagans  had  their  processions  with  lamps  ;  and  tapers  were 
kept  burning  day  and  night,  before  the  idols.  The  primitive 
Christians,  you  know,  ridiculed  this  custom  of  the  idolatrous  Pa- 
gans. Laetantius'  words  I  recommend  to  you,  gentlemen,  and  to 
all  your  people.  "  They  [the  heathen]  light  up  candles  to  God," 
said  this  primitive  Christian  with  keen  ridicule,  "  as  if  he  lived  in 
the  dark !  And  do  not  they  deserve  to  pass  for  madmen  who 
offer  lamps  to  the  Author  and  Giver  of  light  1  See  also  Middle- 
ton  p.  140-155.  You  cannot  answer  this  Christian  father  in  the 
negative.  Do  you,  then,  and  the  laity,  take  good  heed,  and  see 
to  it:  for  you  have  no  communion  in  this  thing  with  the  ancient 
primitive  Christians ?  Your  "  Gods  live  in  the  dark:"  and  let 
your  people  know  that  "  you  light  up  lamps  to  give  them  light." 

Abstaining  from  meats  in  Lent,  and  in  other  seasons,  is  another 
singular  attribute  of  your  Superstition,  Your  religion  being  one 
that  is  avowedly  made  to  consist  solely  in  externals,  and  one  that 
avowedly  sets  aside  all  religion,  purity,  and  spirituality  in  the 
hearts :  it  follows,  with  you,  of  course,  contrary  to  our  Saviour's 
words,  that  "  it  is  not  that  which  cometh  out  of  the  heart,  that  de- 
fileth  a  man ; "  but  that  meat  which  "  enters  into  the  mouth ! " 
This,  you  gravely  affirm,  does  not  defile  the  man !  Hence,  "  your 


305 

disciples,  on  their  sick  beds,"  as  Bishop  Hall  said ;  ^'are  troubled 
by  no  sin  so  much  as  by  this  that  they  did  once  eat  meal  on  a 
Friday:  no  repentance  can  expiate  that ;  the  rest  of  their  sins 
need  none  !"  p.  171,  works  folio.  But  can  you  not  see  through 
the  mist  of  fanaticism,  that  meat,  which  God  has  blessed  and 
made  good  for  our  use,  can  no  more  defile  the  soul,  than  it  can 
spoil  a  fine  thought,  or  corrupt  a  pure  idea !  True,  you  re])ly — 
this  would  hold  good  if  religion  were  in  the  heart !  But  our  reli- 
gion being  external,  altogether  outward,  and  in  the  acts  of  the 
body,  the  use  of  meats  defiles  our  religious  feelings !  ! 

The  DISCIPLINE  AMD  PENANCE  of  youT  Cliurcli  are  very  strongly 
marked  with  superstition.  Here  again  you  contradict  St.  PauL 
You  insist  in  his  very  face,  that  bodily  exercise  is  all  and  in  all; 
being  profitable  even  to  salvation  !  Hence  your  cruel  fastings, — 
I  mean  in  olden  times.  I  beg  to  be  understood,  gentlemen,  that  I 
do  not  charge  this  on  you.  No  man  understands  better  than  a 
priest  how  "  to  live  well !  "  Or  as  Sir  Walter  Scott  makes  his 
hero  say  to  the  broad  shouldered,  brawny,  fiery,  red  faced  priest! 
— "  Do  not  tell  me  so — friend ; — I  know  you  do  not  live  as  you 
profess  to  do, — on  dry  peas  and  cold  water ! "  But  on  the  Laity 
your  Church  lays  the  healthful  service  of  fastings ;  and  lacera- 
tions; and  flagellations  w^ith  the  whip  !  This  mania  has  occasion- 
ally broken  out  in  the  overflowings  of  superstition;  and  has 
drawn  Bishops  and  Cardinals,  and  even  kings  into  its  vortex.  A 
king  of  France,  and  the  Cardinal  Lorrain,  have  been  known  to 
join  the  flaggellation  procession,  clothed  in  sackcloth,  and  armed 
with  "  the  holy  and  sanctifying  whip  ! "  And  historians  tell  us, 
that  at  a  certain  season  of  this  discipline,  the  lights  in  the  church 
are  at  the  tinkling  of  a  bell,  extinguished :  then  each  devotee 
seizing  the  holy  moment,  strips  bear  the  shoulders ;  and  for  an 
hour  nothing  is  heard  but  the  noise  of  the  well  applied  whip,  either 
on  the  shoulders,  or,  it  may  be,  as  profitably,  on  the  benches  within 
their  reach  !  And  if  any  thing  farther  were  necessary,  I  would 
point  to  St.  Patrick's  recorded  macerations  of  the  flesh,  as  a 
striking  instance  of  this  superstition.  Lying  on  the  cold  stones; 
under  the  open  air  :  repeating  daily  150  psalms  :  making  300  gen- 
uflections, his  right  hand  performing  800  motions  in  the  sign  of 
the  Cross  daily  !  and  dividing  the  night  into  three  parts:  one  third 
on  his  knees,  one  third  sleeping,  and  one  third  standing  immersed 
in  cold  water!!  See  the  Rom.  Brev.  March  17.  Thus  St.  Patrick 
spent  his  edifying  days  ! ! 

Again  : — By  what  name  shall  I  call  your  worshiji  paid  to  the 
wood  of  the  Cross  ?  In  the  Holy  Scriptui'es,  the  word  cross  is 
used  to  express,  1st,  the  cruel  and  ignominious  death  of  crucifix 
ion:  and  in  this  sense  "the  tree"  is  "the  accursed  tree;"  and 
the  person  dving  on  it  is,  in  law,  "  cursed  :"  thus,  "  cursed  is  every 
No.  20—39 


306 

one  that  hangeth  on  a  tree ! "  And  thus  our  Saviour  "  was  made 
a  curse  for  us,"  to  redeem  us  from  all  sin.  2d.  It  is  taken  for  the 
real  and  perfect  atonement  of  Christ,  becouse  this  was  fully  ac- 
complished on  the  Cross.  But  contrary  to  the  sentiments  and 
faith  of  the  whole  Christian  world,  the  Romish  Church,  makes  the 
"  cursed  tree,"  not  only  "  a  blessed  tree ;"  but  the  wood  thereof  is 
a  real  object  of  worship,  with  latria  ;  "  Quia  Debetur  ei  latria." 
See  Pontif  Rom.  Clem.  8  Roman  edit.  1595,  folio. 

Here,  I  shall  subjoin  a  specimen  of  your  prayers  offered  up  to 
the  WOOD  OF  THE  CROSS.  "  O  Crux,  unica  spes,  &c.  O  Cross, 
only  hope ;  hail !  in  this  glory  of  thy  triumph,  give  an  increase  of 
grace  to  the  pious,  and  blot  out  the  crimes  of  the  guilty ! "  Festa 
Sept.  14.  "  O  bona  Crux,  &c.  O  good  Cross,  who  hast  obtained 
comeliness  and  beauty  from  the  Lord's  hmbs,  receive  me  6z:c." 
Nov.  30th.  And  many  of  the  good  citizens  of  New  York  may 
have  witnessed  this  idolatrous  superstition  in  the  elevation  of  the 
Cross ;  and  its  being  waved  about  by  a  little  roguish  boy ;  as  he 
presented  it  to  the  prostrate  holy  votaries,  worshipping  a  bit  of 
blackened  wood !  "  Behold  the  wood  of  the  Cross !  "  cries  the 
Priest.  "  Venite,  adoremus  ! !  Come,  let  us  adore  it ! "  And  all 
are  on  their  knees  :  and  happy  that  favorite  one  who  can  only  get 
near  enough  to  kiss  it,  as  he  adores  it ! !  See  Rom.  Brev.  Sat.  of 
Passion  week.  There  is  not  a  more  brutish  superstition  in  the 
annals  of  paganism!  I  challenge  any  man  to  produce  its  match 
out  of  all  ancient  and  modern  heathenism  ! 

And  the  Roman  superstition  is  not  confined  to  priests  and  old 
women.  The  following  is  the  prayer  of  the  priest-riden  ex-king, 
Charles  X.  of  France,  at  the  baptism  of  the  Due  de  Bourdeaux  in 
1821.  "  Let  us  invoke  for  him  the  protection  of  the  mother  of 
God!  the  queen  of  angels!  Let  us  implore  her  to  watch  over  his 
days;  and  remove  far  from  his  cradle,  the  misfortunes  which  it 
has  pleased  Providence  to  afflict  his  relatives ;  and  to  conduct  him 
by  a  less  rugged  path  to  eternal  felicity !"  Shall  I  call  this  super- 
stition, or  sheer  atheism!  It  is  a  morsel  of  the  revived  Jesuitism 
of  France  I 

The  next  case  is  that  of  Ulric,  Duke  of  Brunswick,  who  in  his 
dotage,  took  it  into  his  head  to  be — not  converted,  for  the  Romish 
church  holds  no  such  doctrine, — but  "  reconciled  to  the  Romish 
Church."  Never  having  known  the  nature  of  true  religion,  he 
was  easily  seduced  by  the  Papists.  He  wrote  a  tract  called 
"  Fifty  reasons  of  the  Duke  of  Brunswick,  for  preferring  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  religion  to  all  other  sects."  The  following  is  his 
last  and  crowning  reason,  which  I  copy  hterally.  It  exhibits  a 
new  specimen  of  life  insurance  '  "  The  Catholics,  to  whom  I  spoke 
concerning  my  conversion  (to  Romanism)  assured  me"  says  he, 
"  that  if  I  were  to  be  damned  for  embracing  the  CathoHc  faith, 


307 

they  were  ready  to  answer  for  me  at  the  day  of  judgment ;  and  to 
take  my  damnation  u})on  tliemselves  ;  an  assurance  I  could  never 
extort,"  adds  the  Duke  very  gravely,  "  from  the  ministers  of  any 
other  sect,  in  case  I  should  live  and  die  in  their  religion  !"  See 
this  book  recommended  by  your  champion,  Dr.  Milner,  Manch. 
edit.  1802:  and  Glasg.  Prot.  No.  188. 

Again:  Your  doctrine  of  supererogation  is  a  profitable  piece  of 
Superstition  !  You  hold  that  your  Saints  can  not  only  keep  all 
the  law  of  God  perfectly  :  but  even  do  quite  a  great  deal  over, 
and  above,  what  infinite  perfection  requires.  This  is  "the  merits 
of  all  Saints?"  It  is  put,  as  you  gravely  teach  the  world,  into 
one  great  treasury:  and  the  Pope  keeps  the  key  ol  it:  and  he 
deals  it  out  by  way  of  indulgences,  absolutions  : — and  for  the 
help  of  all  who  have  no  merit;  but  on  the  contrary,  much  guilt. 
No  man  is  refused  his  full  share,  even  to  an  escape  from  Purgato- 
ry, and  even  from  Hell : — and  triumphant  entrance  into  Heaven, 
— on  oxE  small  condition,  namely,  that  he  pay  the  full  price  fix- 
ed by  the  holy  Chancery  books  of  the  Pope;  and  the  dictation  of 
the  Priest, — in  gold  and  silver!  ! !  Shall  I  call  this  superstition? 
Or  knavery?  Or  both  ?  The  Pope  collects  All  Saints'  merit  in- 
to a  fund :  and  makes  sale  of  it !  I  gravely  ask  the  public  if  they 
can  name  a  more  barefaced  system  of  knavery,  practiced  on  a 
poor  and  deluded  people,  to  abstract  their  money  from  them,  un- 
der false  pretences  ?  And  especially  so,  when  Dr.  Varela,  un- 
contradicted by  the  bishop,  and  his  associates,  has  published  the 
fact,  in  a  newspaper,  a  few  days  ago, — "that  it  is  a  doctrine  of 
the  Romish  Church,  that  the  priests  do  not  know  who,  or  what 
of  their  deceased  parishioners,  are  in  Purgatory !! !  I  therefore, 
respectfully  appeal  unto  you,  fellow  citizens,  of  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic faith,  whether  they  can  be  good  men  or  possessing  common 
honesty  to  avow  this, — that  they  do  not  know  who  are  in  purga- 
tory ;  and  yet  take  your  money  in  large  sums  for  masses  to  free 
your  deceased  relatives  from  that  place  !  What  do  you  call  the 
men  around  you,  who  extort  money  by  false  pretences  ?  Look 
well  to  it.  I  am  not  and  cannot  be  your  enemy,  who  put  you  on 
your  guard ;  and  tell  you,  that  God  Almighty  asks  no  money  for 
masses,  and  for  pardoning  your  sins.  Will  you  believe  the 
Priests  rather  than  God?  Go  to  mM  alone,  through  the  Lord  Je- 
sus Christ, — He  offers  to  do  it  "without  money,  and  without 
price."     See  Doway  Bible,  Isaiah  55,  1. 

Finally: — I  shall  oblige  you  and  my  readers,  w^ith  only  one  in- 
stance more,  of  the  incurable  Superstition  of  your  Church.  I 
allude  to  "the  feast  of  asses," — so  famous  in  your  churches, 
until  the  light  of  "the  Heretics"  religion  drove  this  relic  of  dark- 
ness, I  believe,  into  oblivion ; — at  least  I  have  not  heard  of  your 
celebrating  it  in  St.  Patrick's,  or  St.  Peter's. 


308 

I  copy  from  Du  Cange  Gloss.  Paris  edit.  1733,  vol.  iii,  p.  426. 
And  Velly's  Histoire  du  France.  Paris  edit.  175.  vol.  iii.  p.  637. 
Ad  Edgar's  Var.  p.  46.  This  festival  commemorated  the  flight  . 
of  Joseph  and  Mary  in  Egypt ;  but  the  Ass,  on  which  Mary  rode, 
is  the  most  conspicuous  personage  in  the  group.  Your  sacerdo- 
tal ancestors  selected  the  prettiest  young  lady  in  the  town :  she 
represented  Mary:  she  rode  on  an  Ass  in  splendid  attire:  and 
superb  asinine  trappings.  She  rode  the  Ass  into  the  Church,  and 
up  to  the  ahar  :  high  mass  was  then  begun :  the  Ass  as  he  was 
taught  by  his  compeers,  and  fellow  worshippers,  kneeled  down 
at  the  altar.  After  mass,  an  ode  was  sung  by  the  Priests  in  full 
chorus  TO  THE  ASS ! !  I  copy  from  your  own  writers :  and  I 
challenge  you  to  disprove,  and  detect  a  false  quotation.  I  have 
a  copy  of  the  Ode  now  before  me,  from  Du  Cange,  in  Latin, 
French,  and  EngHsh.  Here  are  the  stanzas,  and  I  can  give  you 
or  any  other  antiquarian,  farther  particulars.  "Orientibus  parti- 
bus,"  &c.     Hez!  Sire  Asne,  car  chantez,"  &c. 

**The  Ass  did  come  from  Eastern  climes  ! 

Heigh  ho  !  my  A  ssy  ! 
He's  fair  and  fit  for  the  pack,  at  all  times  ! 
Sing,  father  Ass !  and  you  shall  have  gi*ass, 
And  hay,  and  straw,  in  plenty  ! 

**The  Ass  is  slow  and  lazy  tooj 

Heigh  ho,  my  Assy, 
But  the  whip  and  the  spur  will  make  him  go. 
Sing,  Father  Ass,  and  you  shall  have  grass. 
And  straw,  and  hay  too,  in  plenty. 

* 'The  Ass  was  born  and  bred  with  long  ears< 

Heigh  ho,  my  Assy, 
And  yet  the  Lord  of  Asses  appears, 
Grin,  Father  Ass,  and  you  shall  get  grass. 
And  straw,  and  hay  too,  in  plenty . 

*'The  Ass  excels  the  hind  at  a  leap. 

Heigh  ho,  my  Assy, 
And  faster  than  hound  or  hare  can  trot, 
Bray,  Father  Ass,  and  you  shall  have  grass. 
And  straw,  and  hay  too,  in  plenty.'* 

This  specimen  of  beauty,  elegance,  and  devotion — I  repeat  it, 
— is  recorded  by  Du  Cange.  I  haye  only  to  add  that  the  whole 
service  concluded  with  a  braying  match  between  the  Priests 
around  the  Altar,  and  the  Laity,  in  honour  of  the  Ass.  The 
Priests  "representing  the  Ass,"  brayed  in  a  fine  treble  voice  three 
times :  this  was  replied  to  by  the  people,  who  in  full  chorus  bray- 
ed three  times !  Then  the  astonished  Ass,  with  his  cortege,  was 
led  away  home  ?  Where  can  any  man  find  a  match  for  this  ? 
And  there  is  no  use  in  denying  it  as  you  likely  will  do,  and  as 
you  have  done  all  my  quotations ;  even  while  your  books  are  ly- 


309 

ingopen  before  the  public.  If  any  man  doubt  it,  I  can  show  the 
books  containing  this  account.  Our  Priests  know  that  this  As- 
inine feast  is  as  genuine  as  is  that  of  the  Mass  !  See  also  the  Re- 
creat.  Mag.  London  and  Boston  Edit.   p.  186. 

Lastly : — Your  system  has  been  sustained  by  Imposture  and 
FRAUDS.  Here  I  have  materials  for  volumes;  I  can  give  only  a 
specimen  of  my  gleanings  from  your  Roman  Catholic  works.  In 
former  ages  of  youi  dark  system,  you  studiously  kept  the  people 
in  profound  ignorance :  and  hence  you  carried  on  the  imposture 
with  every  facility.  Hence  your  sweating  images :  your  weep- 
ing images, — tears  running  down  from  their  eyes  in  floods ! 
Hence  your  images  which  rolled  the  eyes,  and  shook  the  head  ! 
At  the  Reformation  when  sad  havoc  was  made  with  these  mira- 
cle makers,  several  rare  specimens  were  publicly  exhibited.  In- 
stead of  brains,  these  Catholic  idols,  had  springs  and  compHcated 
machinery,  to  give  motion  to  the  eyes  and  to  the  head,  and  excite 
the  piety  of  "the  simple  faithful." 

In  lands  purely  Catholic,  the  people  when  paying  for  their 
Masses,  wish  very  naturally,  to  know  if  the  soul  has  received 
benefit,  and  is  delivered ; — though,  I  must  repeat  it,  Father  Va- 
rela  has  let  out  a  dangerous  secret,  namely,  "that  their  Church 
teaches  that  no  one  of  their  Priests  knows  what  soul  is  in  Purga- 
tory." Well,  the  Priest  tells  "the  simple  faithful,"  that  as  long  as 
the  soul  is  not  delivered,  by  looking  into  a  little  door  in  the  Sac- 
rario,  or  tabernacle,  they  can  see  it ;  that  is  to  say,  the  departed 
soul,  in  the  form  of  a  mouse  !  When  it  is  set  free  from  the  pur- 
gatorial pains :  that  is,  when  all  the  money  that  can  be  exacted 
for  masses  is  obtained,  then  the  mouse  disappears  !  See  Master 
Key,  vol.  i.  p.  168.  170.  Contemptible  as  this  may  seem  to  some, 
yet  it  is  what  I  should  call  one  of  the  fraternity's  more  respecta- 
ble impostures,  in  "the  mysterity  of  iniquity !  " 

It  is  a  matter  perfectly  evident  from  the  records  of  your  Bre- 
viary ;  and  Butler's  Lives,  and  the  Acta  Sanctorum,  that  your 
whole  system  has  been  carried  on,  in  the  cells  of  Monks  and  Nuns, 
by  one  continuous  tissue  of  visions,  revelations  and  miracles ! 
The  "Religious,"  as  they  misname  themselves,  spend  all  their 
time  in  manufacturing  this  godly  sort  of  ware  for  the  common 
benefit  of  Holy  Mother,  and  the  "simple  faithful."  Miracles  are 
recorded  on  the  pages  of  Butler's  Lives,  (  3  vols.  Dubl.  Edit.)  "as 
plenty  as  blackberries  !  "  Saints  walk,  like  St.  Dennis,  without 
their  heads  !  Devils  are  discomfited,  by  legions  !  The  dead  are 
raised!  The  wafer  is  not  only  converted  into  Christ's  flesh — but 
is  often  seen  transformed  into  a  little  babe  ?  I  invite  my  Catho- 
lic and  Protestant  friends  to  examine  Butler's  Lives,  the  most  ac- 
cessible of  books ;  I  offer  it  for  their  inspection  :  and  the  Dublin 
copy  of  the  CarmeHte  scapular.     See  also  the  book  called   "The 


310 

Frauds  of  the  Monks, "  which  is  about  to  be  published  in  New 
York. 

Again  : — Your  characteristic  talent  at  cursing  and  excommu- 
nicating, in  pontificial  form,  with  all  its  dire  effects,  has  not  been 
confined,  in  its  game,  to  men  and  women !  For  the  common  ben 
efit  of  the  faithful,  it  has  been  successfully  fulminated  against 
four  legged  beasts,  and  creeping  things.  That  is  to  say, — your 
pontificial  wrath  has  been  expended  not  against  Heretics  only ; 
but  against  Vermine!  What  valuable  things  priests  are!  When- 
ever rats,  locusts,  mice,  have  overrun  fields,  the  Priest  in  his  con- 
secrated robes,  with  the  grace  of  intention,  to  render  the  rite  all 
efficient,  walks  over  the  fields,  and  sprinkles  them,  in  the  form  of 
a  cross,  with  holy  water:  and  solemnly  curses  and  excommuni- 
cates these  vermine.  In  Provence,  in  France,  the  locust  were 
thus  cursed  sacerdotically ;  but  as  my  author  states,  they  heeded 
not  the  holy  man,  or  Holy  Mother's  fulmination.  The  Pope  was 
informed  of  their  heretical  obstinacy  !  His  holiness,  being  infal- 
lible, gave  a  salutary  advice  to  the  faithful.  He  ordered  the  ob- 
stinate locust  to  be  again  solemnly  cursed — in  November.  It 
was  punctually  done.  And  lo  !  all  of  them  perished  in  one  night, 
— by  the  Frost !  See  the  account  of  this  in  Kurd's  Hist.  p.  229. 
Prot.  No  21. 

The  famous  Jesuit  Toussain  Bridoul,  and  after  him,  the  well 
known  writer  Gavin,  in  his  "Master  Key  of  Popery,"  gives  nu- 
merous instances  of  beasts,  birds,  and  bees,  pausing  miraculously, 
in  their  gambols,  and  graver  pursuits,  "to  bow  to  and  adore  the 
Holy  Mass!!"  Petrus  Cluniac,  Lib.  1.  cap.  1.— with  whom,  of 
course,  you  gentlemen  and  all  Catholics  are  well  acquainted, — 
gives  us  some  edifying  instances  of  bees,  adoring  and  even  dying 
before  the  Mass  !  One  instance  is  this :  The  wafer  being  convey- 
ed, some  how  or  other  into  the  hive, — the  bees  were  found  dead, 
— and  in  the  midst  of  them,  the  wafer  had  become  an  infant 
Christ!!  I  am  gravely  quoting  from  your  own  approved  author; 
and  you  know  it,  if  you  know  any  thing  of  your  own  minute  his- 
tory !  And  Cantiprat,  Lib.  3.  Sec.  1.  cap.  40,  relates  that  a  hive 
of  bees  being  heard  to  hum  most  harmoniously, — on  inspection 
the  consecrated  wafer  of  the  Mass  was  found  among  them,  while 
they  were  devoutly  humming  its  glory!  Now  this  may  seem  in- 
credible to  many !  But  I  have  only  to  say  that  I  copy  it  out  of 
the  Roman  books.  And  for  my  part,  I  am  not  surprised  that 
bees  should  adore  the  Mass !  To  me  it  is  far  more  miraculous 
that  a  two  legged  animal, — a  man,  with  a  rational  and  immortal 
spirit  should  sing  its  glory !  To  me  it  is  far  more  miraculous 
that  rational  beings  should  be  able  to  believe  that  a  Priest  can 
create  his  Creator  out  of  a  little  wafer, — and  then — eat  up  his 
Creator  !     This  is  matched  only  by  the  every  day  prayers  of  our 


311 

Eutychian  heretics,  the  Roman  priests,  who  make  Mary  "the 
mother  of  God!"  And  St.  Anna  "the  grand-niotfier  ofAhnighty 
God  ! !  "  If  there  be  impostures  equal  to  this  in  any  part  of  God's 
dominions,  I  should  be  glad  to  be  made  ac(|uainted  with  them. 
What  is  the  reason  I  cannot  get  any  one  of  you  three  gentlemen 
to  come  out  and  touch  this  part  of  my  argument  ?  The  reason  is 
obvious;  you  know  that  w^hat  I  speak  is  nothing  but  truth:  and 
you  dare  not---and  you  cannot  defend  these  disgusting— but  pub- 
licly avowed  and  believed  Catholic  absurdities  !  I 

You  are  of  course,  gentlemen,  well  acquainted  with  the  annual 
miracle  of  St.  Januarius  at  Naples.  The  blood  of  this  Saint  is 
kept  in  a  bottle;  it  is  usually  a  crust;  but  on  his  day,  at  the  in- 
vocation of  the  faithful,  it  becomes  "a  bubbling  red  liquid  in  the 
bottle  ;  " — the  token  of  his  presence  and  protection  !  By  the  way 
he  is,  you  know,  the  guardian  against  the  eruptions  of  Mount 
Vesuvius  !  Well  on  a  certain  day,  after  innumerable  ceremo- 
nies, of  which  all  the  pagans  of  all  heathen  lands,  are  innocent, — 
this  Saint's  blood — if  he  condescends  to  be  propitious, — becomes 
a  bubbling  liquid  in  the, — observe  it  well, — in  the  Priest's  hand ! 
Dr.  Moore  the  father  of  General  Sir  John  Moore,  and  the  tutor  of 
the  late  Duke  of  Hamilton— in  his  "Tour,"  gives  a  true  and  full 
account  of  this  annual  ceremony.  Sometimes  the  Holy  Saint  is 
rather  obstinate:  he  will  not  soften  and  dilute  his  own  blood, 
while  it  is  day  light !  Towards  the  evening  the  mob  becomes  very 
obstreperous;  and  chide  the  Saint  in  no  set  phrase;  "You 
sooty,  yellow  faced  old  fellow!  why  wall  you  not  yield  and  melt 
at  the  pious  invocation  of  our  Priests  ! "  These  words  Dr.  Moore 
heard  uttered!  When  it  begins  to  be  conveniently  dark,  the 
blood  in  the  bottle  becomes  liquid, — the  Priest  proclaims  it: — 
then  is  the  boisterous  cry  of  praise  heard,  in  favour  of  "the  beau- 
tiful, and  fair  St.  Januarius!"  So  much  for  the  saint  who  takes 
care  of  Naples;  and  has  the  charge  of  Mount  Vesuvius.  It  is  a 
pretty  and  profitable  imposture !  For  money  flows  in  plentifully, 
when  this  Saint  yields — that  is,  melts  his  crusted  blood  in  the 
Priest's  bottle,  and  the  Priest's  coflfers  overflow  with  silver  ! 

Hear  another  instance  of  imposture.  About  17  years  ago, 
says  an  eminent  writer  in  1820,  a  lady  of  Edinburgh  was  on  a 
visit  to  her  Dublin  friends.  On  the  evening  of  a  great  festival, 
when  the  Priest  was  to  show  the  proper  friends,  the  souls  of  their 
relatives  coming  out  of  Purgatory,  this  lady  went  with  her  Cath- 
olic relations  to  chapel.  The  priest  had  arranged  his  theatrical 
display,  with  exactness.  Seated  near  the  altar  he  performed 
Mass.  In  front  of  him  was  a  broad  slanting  board.  As  the  mo- 
ment drew  nigh,  when  his  prayers  was  to  evoke  the  tortured 
souls,— the  lights  were  nearly  all  extinguished.  The  souls  in  pur- 
gatory, he  stated  were  to  come  out  from  below,  from  the  Abyss; 


312 

and  were  to  appear  in  a  visible  form,  moving  on  this  board  be* 
fore  him.  Presently  as  the  efficiency  of  the  mass  began  to  ope- 
rate on  the  inmates  of  the  Purgatorial  regions, — behold  at  the 
bidding  of  the  holy  man : — and  as  the  money  was  freely  paid, — 
there  appeared,  black,  burned,  brandered,  and  seared  creatures, 
crawling  slowly,  and  heavily  out,  on  this  said  slanting  board  1 
"A  miracle!  a  miracle!  "  resounded  on  all  hands!  And  the  ho- 
ly man's  piety  being  quickened  by  the  heavy  sums  pouring  in 
upon  him  from  all  parts  of  the  chapel,  his  prayers  educed  a  great 
flock  of  them  ;  The  whole  board  was  covered  with  "the  crawl- 
ing scorched  souls !"  Our  Lady,  a  Protestant,  and  of  course 
very  sly,  being  in  the  front  pew,  near  by  these  unearthly  crea- 
tures ;~-slyly  stooped  down, — not  to  pray, — but  to  snatch  one  of 
these  messengers  from  the  fire  of  Purgatory :  and  she  succeeded 
in  catching  one  of  ihem,  and  put  it  into  her  pocket !  And  when 
she  reached  her  friend's  house,  pulled  it  out,  and,  to  the  amaze- 
ment and  great  edification  of  her  Catholic  friends,  displayed — a 
CRAB,  in  a  newly  fitted  on  dress  of  black  velvet ! ! !  This  was 
pubUshed  under  the  Lady's  authority  by  an  eminent  minister  of 
Edinburgh.     See  Glasg.  Prot.  No.  78. 

I  shall  conclude  with  the  imposture  of  St.  Peter's  chair.  "At 
the  extremity  of  the  great  Nave  of  St.  Peter's  Rome,  and  behind 
the  altar  stands,-or  rather  once  stood — a  sort  of  a  throne,"  says 
a  late  traveller.  "This  throne  enshrined  the  real,  plain,  worm- 
eaten  wooden  chair,  in  which  St.  Peter  actually  sat,  when  he  was 
Pope."  When  the  French  under  Napoleon  visited  Rome,  not  be- 
ing much  disposed  towards  the  faith  of  the  simple  faithful,  they 
seized  this  holy  relic.  Upon  a  close  examination  of  its  decorations 
certain  letters  and  figures  were  traced.  It  was  carefully  wash- 
ed from  its  cobwebs  and  dust;  and  the  sentence  copied  from  the 
back  of  'St.  Peter's  identical  chair.'  It  was  in  Arabic  charac- 
ter! Alas!  for  Saint  Peter's  pontificial  chair!  Alas!  for  the 
Pope's  infallible  succession  in  this  chair.  The  sentence  was 
translated,  papists  unfortunately  for  infallibility, — are  no  scholars 
in  the  Oriental  languages.  Here  is  the  translation.  "There  is 
one  God,  and  Mohammed  is  his  Prophet ! "  It  had  been  a  sad 
mistake  ?  Instead  of  Peter's  stool  from  the  older  Churches ;  or 
his  seat  at  Antioch,  the  ignorant  Romanists  had  plundered  a  Mo- 
hamedan  priest  of  his  chair,  and  thus  robbed  the  mosque  to  deco- 
rate Saint  Peter's  at  Rome !  Thus,  the  Pope  had  been  sitting 
from  time  immemorial,  not  in  St.  Peter's  chair,  but  in  a  Mufti's 
chair.  And  hence,  as  they  count  their  succession  by  "a  Chair," 
the  Pope  has  upset  his  infallibility,  and  derives  his  legitimate  suc- 
cession from  Mohammed  !! 

In  my  next  letter,  by  the  will  of  God,  I  shall  in  "logical  depen- 
dence," go   on  to  discuss  "the   notes"  and  "inarks'!    of   your 


313 

Church;  and  test  our  Rule  of  Faith,  and  your  Rule  of  Faith,  on 
that  vital  point.  And  I  shall  leave  you  to  rave  away  like  ma- 
niacs against  God's  Holy  Word,  and  the  Spirit  speaking  to  us  in 
them ! 

I  am  your  courteous  friend  and  servant, 

W.  C.  BROWNLEE, 
Collegiate  Minister  of  the  Middle  and  North  Dutch   Churches. 

JVew  York,  July  2c/,  1833. 


TO  DOCTORS   POWER,   AND  LEVINS. 

Gentlemen ; — You  have  honoured  me  vi^ith  a  Card  containing 
a  fresh  challenge  ;  and  in  last  Saturday's  paper,  you  reiterate  it. 
You  were  well  aware  when  you  wrote  these  cards,  that  Mr.  Den- 
man  had  no  less  than  two  letters,  in  hand  from  me,  in  reply  to  the 
Roman  Catholic  priests;  namely  otie  to  Dr.  Varela;  and  one  to 
you,  in  regular  order  of  discussion.  Had  I  been  two  letters  or 
ieven  one  in  arrears,  you  might  have  had  some  plausible  reason 
for  this  zeal  and  impatience.  As  it  is, — I  leave  the  public  to  judge 
with  what  kind  of  grace  you  make  this  new  and  bullying  challenge. 
Your  Editor  keeps  up  my  letters,  and  ludicrously  enough  offers  his 
columns  to  you  to  reiterate  fresh  calls  upon  me  to  come  out!!! 
And  yet  he  gave  me  his  assurance  that  he  would  deal  fairly  with 


me 


M  I 


The  new  challenge  is  thus  expressed:  '' A. proposition  is  proposed 
to  Preacher  Brownlee;  What  articles  of  faith  found  in  the  Scrip- 
tures in  express  terms  must  be  believed  in  order  to  be  saved  ?  The 
continuation  of  our  controversy  with  him  personally  will  depend 
on  his  answer!" 

Before  I  give  a  direct  answer  to  this,  I  am  constrained  to  offer 
some  general  remarks  on  this  ungrammatical  and  blundering  card, 
which  asks,  ^^what  articles  must  be  believed  in  order  to  their^^  (the  ar- 
ticles) %eing  saved!" 

One  aim  you  have  ever  kept  in  view  from  the  first,  in  all  this 
discussion  ;  and  that  was,  to  prevent  me  by  all  possible  means 
from  exhibiting  in  all  their  horrid  deformity,  the  dogmas,  and 
rites  of  your  Church.  For  this  purpose  you  adhered  to  "/Ae 
i?u/e,"  and  would  hear  of  nothing  hut  *' the  Rule;"  even  after  its 
evidence  was  lull,  explicit,  and  complete;  and  after  you  had  ex 
haustedeven  the  last  of  your  borrowed  ideos)  and  spent  the  last  ex- 
pletive of  your  ferocious  vituperations.  It  is  true,  you  thought 
that  you  had  caught  me  in  your  trap,  when  I  changed  my  pur- 
pose, and  agreed  to  discuss  the  Rule.  But,  you  were  not  aware 
40 


314 

until  it  was  too  late,  that  I  had  laid  a  trap  for  you.  You  were 
not  aware  that  we  were,  all  the  while,  drawing  you  out ;  and 
setting  you  before  the  American  public,  in  all  the  unenviable 
character  of  notoriously  convicted  Deists:  more  vulgar  than 
Thomas  Paine  ;  and  more  blasphemous  than  Mons.  Voltaire!! 
I  thus  succeeded  in  a  double  object, — namely,  the  exposure  of 
your  corrupt  Church,  and  of  your  personal  Deism  ! ! 

And,  now,  not  yet  having  found  an  excuse  palpable  enough  to 
cover  your  retreat;  you  assume  an  inquisitorial  air;  and  you  not  on- 
ly dictate  to  me  a  subject,  which  will  draw  me  entirely  away  from 
that  which  the  pubUc  expect  and  demand  from  me:  but  you  also, 
take  it  on  you  to  declare,  that  unless  my  answer  shall  be  precisely 
according  to  your  views,  and  wishes,  you  will  then  retreat  and 
leave  the  ground  1 1 1 

Now,  I  call  on  you  to  keep  strictly  to  the  point  under  discus- 
sion. Upwards  oi  twenty-Jive  arguments  I  have- had  the  honour  of 
presenting  to  your  consideration,  and  that  of  the  public  ;  touching 
the  Rule  of  Faith :  and  touching  the  divisions ;  the  novelty  of 
your  Church;  her  superstitions;  fanaticism,  and  impostures  I 
None  of  all  these  have  been  reviewed,  far  less  answered  by  you. 
If  you  do  retreat, — I  here  enter  my  solemn  protest  against  it,  be- 
fore the  public,  that  it  can  be  for  no  other  reason  than  this, — name- 
ly, that  you  cannot  vindicate  or  defend  her  from  one  of  all  these 
charges !  If  you  do  retreat,  I  protest  that  it  shall  be  pronounced  a 
public  acknowledgment,  that  Popery  is  indefensible  before  the  en- 
lightened American  people ! ! ! 

I  now  beg  leave  respectfully,  to  present  my  answer  to  the 
challenge  in  your  Cards.  The  articles  of  faith  put  forth  in  ex- 
press terms  in  the  Scriptures,  and  necessary  to  be  believed  by  us, 
in  order  to  our  salvation  are  these : — "Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved."  "He  that  belie  veth  and  is  baptized, 
shall  be  saved  :  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned."  "Shew  ye 
iorth  the  Lord's  death,  until  he  come. "  "Do  this"  (celebrate  the 
Eucharist)  "in  remembrance  of  me."  "This  is  hfe  eternal  to 
know  thee,  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast 
sent."  "God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  sent  his  only  begotten 
Son  into  the  world  that  the  world  through  him  might  be  saved." 
"If  thou  shalt  believe  in  thine  heart,  and  confess  with  thy  mouth 
the  Lord  Jesus,  thou  shalt  be  saved."  "Except  a  man  be  born  of 
the  water,  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven."  "Except  ye  repent,  ye  shall  all  likewise  perish."— 
"Walking  in  all  the  commandments,  and  ordinances  of  the  Lord 
blameless,"  "thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart, 
and  with  all  thy  strength,  and  thy  neighbour,  as  thyself."  "We 
are  justified  by  the  faith  of  Jesus  Christ;  and  not  by  the  works  of 
the  law."    "By  the  works  of  the  law  shall  no  flesh  living  be  jus- 


315 

tified ;"  that  is,  before  God,  our  Heavenly  Father.  "By  works,** 
the  fruits  of  holiness  "is  a  man  justified,  and  not  by  faith  only," 
says  St.  James  :— that  is,  before  meii,  wc  give  evidence  of  justifica- 
tion by  our  piety  and  holiness.  By  faith  in  "Christ's  imputed 
righteousness  alone  without  works,  are  we  justified  at  the  bar  of 
God,  in  our  justification  bfore  God.  Thus  Paul  and  James  are  re- 
conciled, and  plainly  too,  even  to  an  infant  scholar  ! 

Here  are  the  articles  in  express  terms  of  Scripture.  I  omit,  for 
want  of  room,  those  about  Christ  the  only  King  and  head  of  the 
Church:  about  *' the  Man  of  Sin:''  and  about  ''the  mark  of  the 
Beast  on  the  forehead,  arid  in  the  hands,''  which  will  doom  a  man  to 
perdition.  Now  if  we  believe  these  in  the  heart  by  the  true  faith 
of  God,  the  Holy  Spirit's  operation,  and  "if  we  confess  them 
with  the  mouth,  we  shall  be  saved."  And  I  give  them  in  the  ex- 
press words  of  God,  in  his  Scriptures:  And  who  shall  dare  to 
gainsay  the  express  words  of  God?  Which  of  you  will  venture 
to  impugn  the  counsels,  decrees  and  doctrines  of  the  Almighty  ? 

And  now  having  fully  answered  your  inquiries ,  and  met  your 
challenge,  I  demand  it,  as  my  right,  to  go  on  with  the  main  point  in 
hand,  namely  the  exposure  of  the  old  "Harlot,  Mother  of  Baby- 
lon." And  in  my  turn  I  challenge  you  to  follow  me,  and  repel 
my  arguments,  if  you  have  the  moral  courage  to  do  it.  By  the 
grace  of  God  I  shall  not  retreat! 

Meantime,  I  am  gentlemen, 

Respectfully  yours,  &c. 

W.  C.  BROWNLEE. 


Hr.  JBrownlee^s  L.eU€r^  JVo,  19. 

TO  DRS.  POWER,  VARELA,  &  MR.  LEVINS. 

"Sic  et  Babylon  a  pud  Johannem,  &c.  Thus  also  Babylon  is,  in  our  John,  a  figure  of 
the  city  of  Rome;  which  is  great  and  proud  in  empire  and  a  Bubduer  of  the  saints." — 
Tertuauin. 

Gentlemen : — We  have  shown  that  the  Roman  Catholic  religion 
is  not  found  in  the  Bible :  that,  in  fact,  the  whole  system  is  irre- 
concilable with  the  Word  of  God:  We  have  also  finished  our 
discussion  on  the  superstition,  fanaticism,  and  impostures  of  the 
Romish  Church,  and  Clergy.  The  subject  which  now  claims  our 
attention  in  the  natural  order  of  "logical  dependence,"  is  that  ol 
the  notes,  or  marks  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 

It  is  well  known  to  those  who  are  familiar  with  Romish 
books,  or  have  intercourse  with  Catholic  Priests,  and  laity,  that 
''Holy  Mother  Church,"  is  the  main  object  of  their  faith.     That 


316 

sect  has  so  completely  apostatized  from  the  truth,  that  they  seem 
actually  to  have  no  idea  of  saving  "faith  in  God,  and  in  Christ." 
Justification  by  faith  in  Christ,  and  the  renovation  of  the  heart  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  are  doctrines  which  form  no  part  of  their  sys- 
tem. They  "believe  in  Holy  Mother  Church."  They  receive 
hy  faith,  all  that  she  teaches:  they  only  aim  at  dying  in  her  bo- 
som ;  this  is  all  the  justification,  and  all  the  sanctification  they 
look  for.  "The  Temple  of  the  Lord !  The  Temple  of  the  Lord, 
are  these !  "  This  is  as  often  and  as  sincerely  repeated  by  the 
Romish  sect,  as  it  ever  w^as  by  the  Jews  of  antiquity.  They 
have,  in  fact,  publicly  assumed  the  very  ground,  which  the  apos- 
tate Jews  took  against  our  Lord  and  his  kingdom.  They  not 
only  crucify  him  afresh  in  every  repetition  of  the  Mass ;  but  they 
say  we  are  the  children  of  "Holy  Mother  Church;"  we  are  of 
"her  who  is  the  immutable  church :  "  we  are  of  her  to  whom 
the  Lord  gave  the  promise  that  "the  gates  of  hell  shall 
not  prevail  against  her."  This  promise  which  our  Lord 
gave  to  his  pure,  holy  and  only  church,  they  insultingly  and  ar- 
rogantly appropriate  to  themselves ;  even  as  did  the  persecuting 
and  murderous  Jews.  The  latter  said  "We  be  Abraham's  chil- 
dren 1 "  and  thence  they  gravely  inferred  that  the  Almighty  was 
bound,  in  virtue  of  that,  to  save  them,  vicious  and  apostate  though 
they  were.  The  former,  the  Romish  sect,  say — "We  are  of  Holy 
Mother  ! "  And  let  their  character  be  what  it  may :  though  they 
are  at  war  with  God's  law,  and  are  rebels  against  all  of  our 
Lord's  officers, — rejecting  him  as  a  prophet,  by  their  traditions 
and  infidel  Rule  of  Faith!  rejecting  him  as  a  priest  in  each  re- 
newed rebel  act  of  the  Mass,  which  they  call  a  sacrifice  for  the 
quick  and  the  dead !  rejecting  him  as  the  only  king  in  Zion,  by 
the  blasphemous  supremacy  of  the  Pope !  though  they  practise 
all  vices,  and  even  sell  publicly,  as  at  vendue,  the  pardon  of 
sins,  past,  present  and,  future;  yet  because  they  are  of  "Holy 
Mother,"  and  are  in  her  bosom,  they  all  are  saved  and  no  human 
being  out  of  her  pale,  is,   or  can  be  saved ! 

Hence  you  hear  the  Roman  Catholic  Priests  and  laity  pro- 
nouncing the  solemn  doom  of  perdition  on  all  men, — themselves 
only  excepted,  as  the  exclusive  favourites  of  heaven.  To  their 
partizans  in  iniquity,  they  say,  as  men  who  have  taken  the  keys 
of  the  kingdom  out  of  the  hands  of  him  who  alone  can  bear  them, 
and  wield  them.  "If  you  die  in  Holy  Mother's  bosom  at  last,  it 
is  no  matter  what  you  have  been,  or  have  done,  or  what  you 
now  are ;  you  are  safe !  We  are  the  only  church ;  and  the  gold 
and  silver  paid  tor  "absolution"  and  "extreme  unction,"  wash  away 
all  sins ! !  And  as  a  token  of  this,  the  priest,  counterfeiting  as 
much  gravity  as  possible,  wraps  up  his  deluded  votary  in  a  rag 
of  old  "Holy  Mother's"  tattered  garment;  then  dictates  a  certi- 


317 

ficate  to  God  th6  judge,  that  this  said  rag  of  the  Roman  "Harlot/* 
is  the  very  robe  of  the  Redeemer's  righteousness :  and— all  the 
church  dues  being  paid— he  must  of  course  acquit  him,  at  the 
Priest's  bidding;  because  God  had  given  an  assurance  to  his  true 
Church— not  at  all  to  the  Roman  apostacy,--that  what  she  **bound 
on  earth,"  by  way  of  wholesome  discipline,  "he  should  bind  in 
heaven." 

From  all  this  it  must  be  obvious,  with  what  anxiety  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  priests  endeavour  to  establish  the  truth  of  their 
Church,  by  certain  marks.  The  most  prominent  of  these  are 
A?itiquityy  'Catholicity^  Successioriy  Unity,  &c.  These  we  are  now 
to  discuss. 

First: — Antiquity.  There  are  few  points  by  which  the  public 
have  been  more  imposed  on,  than  by  this  claim,  "The  Church  of 
Rome  is  of  the  ancient  religion*"  In  the  ears  of  the  superficial 
and  weak,  this  claim  of  "the  old  religion"  sounds  as  a  resistless 
charm.  "It  is  the  old  religion."  And  from  this  they  draw^  an  in- 
ference befitting  men  who  neither  think  nor  reason.  Instead  of 
listening  to  evidence  and  argument  in  proof  of  the  Romish  utter 
apostacy ;  and,  thence,  justly  inferring  that  the  "age  and  antiqui- 
ty" of  a  rotten  carcase  only  make  it  infinitely  more  rotten  ;— they 
profoundly  and  logically  conclude  that  the  antiquity  of  corruption 
makes  it  sweet  and  good !  "It  is  the  old  religion," — say  they, 
without  stopping  to  Hsten  to  the  proof  that  "Old  Mother"  has 
been  dead  and  buried ;  though  pagan-like,  she  has  been  set  up  in 
her  grave  clothes  to  receive  the  worship  of  her  children.  And 
because  they  deem  her  "the  old  religion,"  therefore  she  is  the 
only  true  religion.  And  the  name  "Protestant,"  being  a  new  name 
— some  tv)o  or  three  hundred  years  old, — therefore  the  religion 
presented  under  that  new  name,  is  a  false  religion.  The  public 
mind  must  be  disabused  on  this  point  And  for  this  purpose  I 
beg  your  attention  to  a  two-fold  sophism  in  this  universal  cant  of 
the  Papists  about  their  antiquity. 

1st.  Antiquity  is  no  evidence,  alone,  of  the  truth  of  a  theory. 
Sin  and  error  are  as  old  as  Adam.  Does  that  ripen  and  mellow 
them  into  God's  truth  ?  The  kingdom  of  Satan  is  considerably 
older  than  even  that  of  Rome,  and  the  popery  thereof.  If  Po- 
pery be  true  from  its  antiquity,  much  more  so  is  the  kingdom  of 
Satan  the  reign  of  the  truth.  The  Ptolomaic  system  of  astrono- 
my, which  placed  the  earth  in  the  centre,  and  made  the  sun  and 
worlds  as  it  w^ere,  move  round  a  little  grain  of  sand,  is  far  more 
ancient  than  the  Copernican :  and,  therefore,  by  Romish  dialect- 
ics, consecrated  to  the  defence  of  "Holy  Mother,"  the  former 
system  is  true,  and  our  received  system  is  false!  Sir  Isaac  New- 
ton's philosophy  is  new :  it  is  only  some  hundred  years  old. 
Therefore  the  systems  of  Egypt,  and  of  the  dark  ages,  are  the 


^18 

true  philosophy  ;  and  Sir  Isaac  is  an  impostor  like  Luther ;  and 
his  system  is  falsehood  ! 

2d.  Another  portion  of  your  sophistry  lies  here,  the  Roman 
priests  designedly  confound  the  name  of  ^^ Protestants,^^  with  the 
system  of  religion,  which  they  maintain  :  and  thence,  in  true  Romish 
logic,  they'conclude  that  because  the  name  "Protestant"  bestow- 
ed on  the  Reformers,  in  consequence  of  their  solemn  Protest  and 
appeal  to  a  general  Council,  against  the  decree  of  Charles  V., 
and  the  Diet  of  Spires,  in  A.  D.  1529, — is  a  new  and  recent  name, 
therefore  their  religion  is  no  older  than  the  7iame!  Now  let  us 
try  the  force  of  this  delectable  Romish  logic.  "Ireland"  is  a 
name  of  modern  date ;  only  some  few  centuries  old.  Before  this, 
it  was  called  Hiber?iia.  But  because  the  name  is  only  a  few  cen- 
turies old,  it  follows  by  the  certainty  of  our  Romish  logic,  that 
the  thing  itself, — even  the  Emerald  Isle  is  a  mere  novelty,  and 
had  only  a  recent  existence  !  "Great  Britain"  is  a  new  name ; 
it  used  to  be  called  "Albion;"— in  short,  England,  Scotland, 
France,  America  itself,  are  all  new  and  modern  names :  and  as, 
by  the  Romish  dialectics,  the  name  and  the  thing  designated  by 
it,  are  of  equal  date  in  duration  ;  therefore,  these  countries  only 
began  to  exist  when  they  got  these  modern  names ! ! 

In  my  letter  VIII.  I  examined  this  maniac  logic.  We  showed 
there,  that  the  Romish  Church  wants  the  essential  marks  of  the 
true  Church  :  I  then  offered  ten  proofs  in  evidence  of  the  histori- 
cal fact,  that  the  Romish  Church  and  her  characteristic  system 
are  a  mere  novelty  ;  invented  chiefly  after  the  sixth  century,  by 
wicked  men  and  despots :  and  the  very  master  piece  of  Priest- 
craft !  These  we  sustained  by  appeals  to  historical  documents. 
And  if  silence  be  consent,  then  have  the  Priests  given  me  their 
unUmited  assent  to  each  and  all  of  these  ten  arguments !  On  this 
mark  of  their  church  I  need  not  long  insist.  I  shall  only  observe 
in  brief,  that  the  great  fundamental  tenet  of  Romanism,— namely, 
the  SUPREMACY  of  the  Pope,  or  ot  the  Church,  is  a  mere  7iovelty  in 
the  history  of  the  Church.  Pope  Zozimus  in  A.  D.  420  seems  to 
have  been  the  first  who  attempted  to  set  up  certain  claims  of  su- 
premacy for  the  Roman  See,  over  all  other  churches  in  the  West. 
And  this  he  tried  to  establish  by  an  impudent  forgery  of  some 
decrees  purporting  to  be  the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Nice ;  in 
which  he  had  caused  it  to  be  written  "that  it  was  lawful  to  appeal 
to  Rome,  from  other  churches."  The  famous  Milevitan  Council 
in  Africa,  of  whom  your  own  St.  Augustine  was  a  leading  and 
faithful  member,  opposed  and  condemned  these  impious  claims  of 
the  Pope.  They  even  sent  a  special  embassy  into  the  East,  to 
obtain  from  the  Greek  Church  attested  copies  of  the  Acts  of  the 
Council  of  Nice.  And  by  these  copies  they  publicly  convicted 
the  Popes  of  Rome,  even  "the  infallible"  Zozimus  and  his  "infal- 


319 

lible''  successors,  of  falsehood, fraud,  and  forgery!  I  shall  give 
you  the  words  of  this  council,  which  solemnly  denied  and  repel- 
led the  pope's  claims  of  supremacy,  so  late  as  the  fifth  century:- 
"Quodsi  abeis,  &c.  But  if  they,  (the  cler«ry)  think  it  necessary 
to  appeal  from  them,  they  shall  appeal  only  to  African  Councils, 
or  to  the  primates  of  their  provinces.  If  any  one  shall  appeal  be- 
yond the  seas,  let  him  he  received  into  communion  by  none  in  Africa" 
The  signature  of  St.  Augustine  is  the  fourth  to  this  solemn  decree. 
See  Mansi.  Concil.  Collect.  Tom.  4.  p.  507.  Venet  Edit.   1785. 

And  so  late  as  the  close  of  the  sixth  century,  namely,  in  A.  D. 
590,  Pope  Gregory  I.  declares  the  Apostle  Peter  "not  to  be  the 
head,  but  only  a  member  of  the  church."  See  Regist.  Lett.  Tom. 
2.  p.  743.  And  again  he  says,  "I  confidently  say  that  whosoever 
calls  \\imse\{,iiniversal  bishop,  or  desires  to  be  called  so,  is,  in  his 
pride,  the  forerunner  of  Antichrist"  &c.  See  Lib.  7.  Indie.  15. 
Epist.  33.  Bedict,  Edit.  Paris,  1705.  In  another  place  he  affirms 
that  the"three  bishoprics  of  Alexandria,  and  Antioch,  and  Rome," 
are  from  the  same  Peter,  "which  is  of  one,  but  in  three  places, — 
qufe  m  tf  ib us  loc'is  unius  est."     Tom.  2.  p.  887. 

It  was  not  until  the  days  of  Boniface  III.  A.  D.  606,  that  the 
Pope  was  raised  to  the  supremacy  of  uiiiversal  bishop.  And  this 
was  done  by  the  civil  power  of  the  atrocious  tyrant  Phocus,  who 
murdered  the  King  his  master,  and  by  murder  and  treason, 
usurped  the  imperial  throne.  And  even  this  supremacy,  obtain- 
ed by  the  most  wicked  means,  extended  to  the  Western  churches 
only.  The  Eastern  and  the  Greek  churches  stood  out  against 
Papal  usurpation,  and  do  resist  you  unto  this  day.  Now  this  su- 
premacy, being  the  corner  stone  of  Popery,  where  is  the  boasted 
antiquity  of  the  Romish  sect  ? 

The  Mass,  the  great  characteristic,  the  golden,  and  lucrative 
doctrine  of  Rome,  is  a  wicked  fiction  of  Priestcraft,  established 
after  many  a  struggle,  in  the  Romish  church,  in  A.  D.  1215,  and 
consequently  it  is  now  only  618  years  old.  And  I  challenge  any 
man  well  versed  in  church  history  to  prove  any  thing  to  the  con- 
trary. 

Auricular  coNFEbSioN,  one  of  the  main  springs  of  ghostly  pow- 
er; the  copious  source  of  wealth  ;— and  of  all  possible  wicked- 
ness, was  finally  established  by  Pope  Innocent  III.,  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  thirteenth  century  and  is  no  older  than  the  Mass. 
Purgatory  was  established  into  an  article  of  profitable  faith,  so 
late  as  the  year  1430,  by  the  Council  of  Florence  :  and  is,  there- 
fore, only  403  years  old!  The  ixvocatio.v  of  Saints  was  fixed 
as  an  article  of  faith  by  you  in  the  ninth  century.  The  use  and 
worship  of  Images  were  condemned  so  late  as  A.  D.  700  by  the 
Council  of  Constantinople.  In  the  ninth  century,  the  darkest 
hour  of  the  darkest  ages,  they  were  finally  set  up  by  impiety  and 


320 

imposture,  as  objects  of  worship  in  your  church.  Telesphorus 
invented  and  brought  in  the  Lenten  feasts:  Calixtus  instituted, 
by  arbitrary  power,  the  four  ember  fasts  in  the  Year:  Hy- 
ginus  exerted  his  genius  in  inventing  the  "sacred  chrism 
or  oil."  The  marriage  of  Priests  was  finally  prohibited  by 
Pope  Gregory  VII.  near  the  close  of  the  eleventh  century, 
say  A.  D.  1070.  And  the  abstraction  of  the  cup  from  the  Eu- 
charist, or  the  communion  without  wine,  after  it  had  been  forged, 
and  invented  by  imposters;  and  opposed  by  Pope  Gelasius,  was 
finally  decreed  by  the  Council  of  Constance  which  met  in  A.  D. 
1414.     And  it  is  therefore,  an  imposition  onl}'  419  years  old  ! 

And  it  is  due  to  truth  to  observe  here,  that  all  these  scandalous 
innovations,  now  alluded  to,  and  more  fully  narrated  in  my  Let- 
ter viii.,  were  not  quietly  permitted  to  usurp  the  throne  of  Christ 
our  Lord,  and  displace  his  doctrines.  On  each  one  of  them  there 
was  a  struggle  before  the  arch-deceiver  prevailed.  I  am  prepar- 
ed to  produce  from^re  to  seventeen  of  the  best  of  your  sainted 
fathers,  against  each  one  of  these  monstrous  inventions  and  novel- 
ties of  Rome.  The  want  of  room  only,  prevents  me  from  quot'- 
ing  them.  St  Augustine  with  Jerome,  who  called  Rome  "the 
great  Babylon,"  and  St.  Ambrose,  take  the  lead.  Every  Roman 
priest  has  read  of  the  two  "thunderbolts  of  war"  against  Ro- 
mish impositions, — namely,  Bertram,  and  Barringer,  who,  in  the 
days  of  Gregory  VII.  called  also  by  the  more  explict  and  empha- 
tic name  of  "Hellbrand,"  impugned  the  abominable  fiction  of  the 
Mass.  Who  has  not  read  of  the  immortal  Robert  Grosthead,  the 
Roman  Catholic  bishop  of  Lincoln,  sirnamed  the  Pounding  ham- 
mer of  the  Romish  Beast?  Who  has  not  heard  of  Gallus,  and 
Petrarch ;  and  a  host  of  others :  and  in  later  times  of  Claud,  D.  D. 
Spense,  and  Nicholas  Clemangis  1 

On  the  contrary,  every  peculiar  doctrine,  and  rite  of  ancient 
Christianity,  as  our  Lord  revealed  it,  and  as  he  commanded  it  to 
be  written  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  have  been  religiously  believed, 
held,  and  professed  by  the  Protestant  Church  of  the  Reformation. 
Call  us  by  any  name  you  elect:  call  us  Protestants;  or  the  chil- 
dren of  the  Italick  church;  or  Waldenses,  or  Albigenses;  or  Bo- 
hemian brethren :  or  Lollands:  or  Huguenots;  or  the  associates 
of  Luther;  of  Calvin;  or  Zuingle :  or  Knox.  We  hold  up  to 
public  view  "  The  syntagmata  confessionum,^^  "the  collection  of  the 
Confessions"  of  the  Reformed  Church.  On  every  doctrine,  and 
sacrament  of  the  pure  old  Christianity  all  the  "Reformed  church- 
es," are  entirely  at  one.  Not  so  in  Rome;  every  essential  doc- 
trine, and  the  two  sacraments  are  buried,  and  utterly  lost  in  the 
rubbish  of  "fallen  Babylon." 

And  were  we  even  to  outrage  truth  and  historical  evidence,  by 
admitting  the  Romish  Church  to  be  a  true  church  of  Christ,-^can 


321 

any  man  be  so  stupid  as  not  to  know  that  the  church  at  Jerusa- 
loni, — the  Syriac  ('hur('h,  which  Dr.  But^hanan  I'ound  existing  in 
the  interior  of  India,  are  lar  more  ancient  than  that  of  Rome? 
Can  any  man  be  so  iijjnorant  of  historical  truth  ;is  not  to  know 
that  the  churches  of  Egyjit,  such  as  that  of  Alexandria;  and  of 
Antioch,  and  the  whole  Creek  Church  is  more  ancient  than  that 
of  Rome.  Nay,  every  sensible  man  knows  that  the  Old  Italick 
Church  was  before  the  church  of  Rome,  as  she  now  is,  being  the 
same  in  doctrine  and  rites  as  the  "Church  at  Rome."  The  ar- 
guments, therefore,  of  the  Roman  writers  on  this  point,  arc  not 
oidy  pure  in  sophistry;  but  actually  false  in  fact! 

2d.  Catholicity. — The  term  Catholic,  a  Greek  work,  signifies 
General  or  Universal.  And  the  Roman  church  claims  the  exclu- 
sive use,  and  honour  of  this  title.  They  are  the  Catholic,  or 
Universal  church. 

When  applied  to  the  church  of  Christ,  "which  he  bought  with 
Iiis  blood;"  as  it  is  appropriately  used  in  the  Creed,  "I  believe  in 
the  holy  catholic  church,"  the  Protestants  understand  it  thus: — 
It  takes  in  all  those  who  are,  or  shall  be  in  the  kingdom  of  God 
above.  "The  church," — says  St.  Jerome, — "does  not  consist  of 
walls,  but  of  true  doctrine.  Wherever  the  true  faith  is,  there  the 
church  is."  Oper.  vol.  7.  p.  388.  "The  church  of  Christ,"  says 
St.  Augustine, — "is  in  the  saints:  the  church  of  Christ  is  in  those 
who  are  written  in  heaven : — The  church  of  Christ  is  in  those 
who  do  not  yield  to  the  temptations  of  the  world."  Oper.  Tom. 
4.  Expos,  of  the  47th  Psalm.  Again,  says  he,  on  the  62d  Psalm, 
—"Christ's  whole  (Catholic)  church,  which  is  spread  every  where 
is  ms  body,  of  which  he  is  the  Head."  In  this  same  sense  do  all 
Protestants  correctly  use  the  term.  The  church  Cathohc  includes 
all  who  are  now  in  glory  out  of  our  ransomed  family:  all  who 
are  now  in  Christ  by  faith:  and  all  who  shall  be  in  him  the  Head 
of  us   all. 

But  the  Romish  schismatics  are  about  as  modest  as  some  of 
the  Eastern  princes  who  claim  dominion  over  sun  and  moon ;  and 
derive  titles  from  these  extensive  and  "Catholic"  dominions,  in  the 
heavens!  They  are  the  "Catholic"  the  "Universal"  church! 
They  have  two  arguments  to  sustain  this  very  romantic  claim  of 
their  romantic  partizans.  1st.  The  Apostles  gave  them  the  ex- 
clusive name  of  "Catholics."  See  the  Rhemist  Annotations  on 
Acts  ii.  sect.  4.  And  Bellarmine  De  Eccles  .Lib.  4.  Cap.  4.  That  is  to 
say,  the  Apostles,  who  wrote  in  Greek;  and  who,  themselves  be- 
longed principally  and  especially  to  the  Syriac  and  Greek  church- 
es, without  any  command  from  heaven,  gave  to  an  obscure  Jew- 
ish assembly  of  Christian  converts  at  Rome,  consisting  probably 
at  that  time,  of  a  few  hundreds,  the  title  of  "  77tc'  Universal 
Church ! " 

No.  21—41. 


322 

You  may  gravely  ask  where  any  one  can  find  the  command,  il 
any  ever  was  given ;  or  where  any  statement  is  made  in  civil  his- 
tory authorizing  the  belief,  that  the  Apostles  of  our  Lord,  in  the 
midst  of  the  great  and  flouristiing  churches  of  the  East,  such  as 
those  of  Syria,  and  Egypt,  and  Greece,  took  it  gravely  into  their 
heads  to  bestow  the  title  of  "Church  Universal,  or  Catholic," 
on  a  few  obscure  Christians  in  Rome  !  I  answer,  no  one  has  been 
yet  bold  enough  to  risk  his  character  in  asserting  oul  of  ancient 
documents,  that  the  Apostles  did  so.     The  simple  word  of  the  in- 
terested "infallible,"  is  all  that  has  been  pleaded.     But  if  there  be 
no  weight  in  this  argument,  in  the  estimation  of  all  who  do  not 
believe  by  proxy, — there  is  a  second  argument  resorted  to  by  the 
very  romantic  advocates  of  Poix;ry.     They  are  the  Catholic,  or 
Universal  Church,''  say  they,— "because  in  respect  of  time,  place, 
and  person,  the  Roman  church  has  always   been  in  the  world: 
and  has  flourished  in  all  nations ! "     That  is  to  say— for  this  needs 
a  friendly  exposition :  "The  Romish  church  has  always  been  in 
the   world,"— except  when  the  Jewish  church  existed ;— which 
was  before  the  Roman   church  had  a  being!      "The   Roman 
church  has  always  been  in  the  world  : "     That  means  for  a   few 
centuries!     "The  Roman  church  has  been  in  all  countries,  in  all 
the  world !"     That  is,  except  in  Asia,  and  Africa,  and  the  greater 
part  of  America,  and  some  of  the  most  extensive  empires  of  Eu- 
rope !     "The  Roman  church  has  flourished  in  all  nations !"     Ex- 
cept England,   Scotland,    Holland,  Ireland,   Denmark,   Russia, 
Prussia,  all  Asia,  all  Africa.     "The  Roman  church  takes  in   all 
people!"     Yes,  except  about  ei^/t<  hundred  millions  out  of  mwe 
hundred  millions  of  the   human  family!     "The  Romish   church 
will  always  be  in  the  world,"  except  from  the  close  of  the  1260 
years,  and  the  whole  period  of  the  millenium,  when  she  will  be 
annihilated  by  a  "Catholic"  overthrow. 

Such  are  the  ludicrous  and  maniac  claims  of  this  sect  of  schis- 
matics to  Catholicity  or    U?iiversality !     The  person  who  does  not 
see  the  absurdity  of  this,   most  assuredly   merits  our  pity   and 
compassion.     The  claim  of  "Catholicity"  in  fact,  sets   all  sober 
reason  utterly  at  defiance.     The  pope,  prelate,  or  priest,  who  so- 
berly claims  the  title  of  ''Catholic"  for  his  sect,  must  either  be  for- 
saken of  reason  and  common  sense,  and  thence,  be  a  maniac :  or, 
which  we  believe  to  be  the  truth  of  the  case,  he  acts  the  impostor 
and  knave ;  who,  conscious  of  the  ridiculous  nature  of  his  claims, 
like  the  charlatan,  advances  them  with  an  unblushing  impudence  to 
cheat  his  votaries  into  compliance,  by  his  lofty  and  swelling  words 
of  vanity,  to  advance  his  own  interests,  in  his  pretensions  to  ghost- 
ly and  temporal  powder !     "A  Roman  Catholic  ! "     That  is  to  say, 
in  plain  English,  "a  particular  general ! "     "A  Roman  Cathohc ! " 


323 

That  is  to  say, — the  little  atlair  called  "/?(Wir%"  is  all  Syria,  all 
Greece,  all  Asia,  all  l'iur<)p(\  all  Ainericn!  ''A  Ivoinnn  Cnlholie  I" 
That  is  to  say,  the  little  nook  of  ''A'owjf "  is  .-ill  llie  wnvM,  nil  the 
universe!  And  (he  lew  hiu^olted  <loiTnias,  invented  l»y  the  niost 
worthless  of  men,  for  the  most  infamous  of  ends,  namely  the  ex- 
tinction of  religion  and  civil  liberty, — these  few  dogmas  form  the 
whole  religion  of  the  ichole  world  ! ! 

"Oh  !  judgment,  thou  liast  fled  to  brutisli  beasts. 
And  men  have  lost  their  reason  !  " 

The  Church  Catholic  and  Universal,  is  a  glorious  assetVihly,  we 
repeat  it, — it  embraces  all  those  who  are  now  in  heaven;  or  on 
the  earth,  walking  m  the  unity  of  the  spirit,  the  beauty  of  holiness, 
and  the  bond  of  peace :  or  who  shall  yet,  in  due  time,  be  united 
to  Christ;  and  shall  ere  loni^,  reach  "the  General  Assembly,  and 
church  of  the  first  born."  But  what  man,  in  the  sober  exercise 
of  his  reason,  did  ev^er  apply  this  title  of  the  "( 'hurch  Universal" 
to  ti  sect  of  Apostates  from  Christ;  contemptible  even  in  point  of 
numbers,  compared  with  the  great  mass  of  the  human  family? 
A  sect,  moreover,  which  has  filled  the  ears  Of  all  good  men  with 
direlul  rumours  !  A  sect  which  has  made  the  very  heavens  re- 
echo with  the  horrid  cries  of  treason,  rebellion  and  crime !  A 
sect  which  has  drenched  the  earth  with  the  blood  of  fifty  mil- 
lions OF  HUMAN  BEINGS  whom  it  has  sacrificed  on  the  altar  of  its 
bloody  and  most  horrid  superstition! ! 

It  deserves  to  be  noticed  here  that  various  sect^lties,  besides 
the  Roman  Church,  have  affected  to  call  themselves  "Catholic ; " 
iand  to  boast  of  their  members.  For  instance,  the  Donatists  did 
so,  in  the  days  of  St.  Augustine.  See  Aug.  Epist.  48.  The 
Pelagians  also  set  up  claims  to  this  inordinate  title ;  as  appears 
from  St.  Jerome,  Lib.  3.  Advers,  Pelag.  "Quid  si  te  alius  Catho- 
licum  dixerit,"  &c.  "What  if  another  call  thee  Catholic?  shall  I 
give  consent  ?"  &c. 

But  it  is  remarkable  that  neither  they,  nor  the  Roman  Catholics 
have  boasted  themselves  of  the  holy  and  most  honourable  name 
of  Christian  !  And  I  perceive  from  various  writers,  the  extra- 
ordinary fact,  that  the  Romish  Priests,  from  time  immemorial, 
have  despised  this  most  venerable  name.  To  Fulk  in  his  notes  on 
Acts  xi.  26,  I  am  indebted  for  the  fact  that  in  Rome,  and  over 
all  Italy,  among  the  "holy  Catholics,"  the  name  "Christian"  has 
been  absolutely  a  term  of  reproach,  used  to  express  the  charac- 
ter of  a  miserable  ]>retender,  a  dolt,  and  a  fool !  Sec  Willet's  Sy- 
nopsis, p.  G5.  And  to  this  day  the  nairie,  and  the  thing  expressed 
by  it,  finds  no  favour,  but  rather  contempt,  with  the  "Vicar  of 
God,"  and  his  "godly"  court  of  prelates! 

I  cannot  close  without  ol)serving  another  material  evidence 
against  your  claims  to  "Catholicity."     These  claims  are  not  only 


324 

illegal,  absurd,  and  contrary  to  historical  evidence;  they  are  ac- 
tually contrary  to  the  doctrine  of  Christ  and  the  sentiments  of 
your  best  fathers.  "Fear  not  little  flock,"  said  our  Lord :  "Many 
are  called,/ezo  are  chosen."  And  St.  Jerome  writing  against  the 
claims  to  Catholicity,  set  up  by  the  Pelagians,  says  in  his  third 
book  against  them ;  "The  multitude  of  your  fellows  doth  not, 
therefore,  prove  you  a  Catholic;  but  rather  a  heretic !"  See  also 
St.  Augustine,  I)e  Pastoribus.  And  one  of  the  more  sensible 
of  your  Popes,  namely,  Nicholas  I.  in  his  Letter  to  the  Emperor 
Michael,  says, — "A  small  company  hinders  not,  where  piety 
aboundeth :  neither  does  a  great  company  further,  where  impiety 
abounds:  glory  not,  therefore,  in  a  multitude ;jror  not  the  multitude, 
hut  the  CAUSE  justifieth,  or  condemneth" 

Finally: — From,  and  after  the  sixth  century,  no  one  of 
your  advocates  can  establish  any  true  claim  of  connection,  on 
your  part,  as  a  Church,  with  the  church  of  Jesus  Christ.  The 
Eastern  Churches  cast  off,  indignantly,  your  infamous  usurpa- 
tions, over  them :  so  also  did  the  African  Church,  with  your  own 
St.  Augustine  at  their  head.  You  have  been  continually  diverg- 
ing from  the  good  old  Church  of  God  at  Rome ;  and  the  good 
old  Italick  Church,  from  whom  our  pure  and  holy  forefathers,  the 
Waldenses  and  Albigenses  proceeded.  You,  like  Ishmael,  are 
against  every  Church  of  Christ :  and  every  Church  against 
you.  You  are  no  longer  the  pure  River  of  God  watering 
the  earth  ;  but  the  sluggish  and  muddy  bayou,  breaking  forth 
from  the  majestic  and  crystal  River  of  God;  and  threading  your 
way,  amid  the  putrid  exhalations  and  swamps  of  a  Dead  Sea ; 
sending  forth,  to  an  immeasurable  extent,  moral  pestilence  and 
death,  over  the  nations ! 

On  the  whole  the  Protestant  Faith  is  not  only  the  most  ancient, 
but  the  MOST  TRUE  CATHOLIC  FAITH.  With  thc  church  of  God  in 
all  ages ;  with  them  on  earth ;  and  with  them  in  heaven,  we  are 
perfectly  as  one,  on  every  doctrine,  and  each  of  the  Sacraments 
which  have  characterised  the  Church,  the  chaste  spouse  of  ChristJ; 
we,  therefore  are,  of  the  true  Catholic  church  of  Christ, — you  are 
the  Roman  Catholic  church  of  antichrist.  We  move  forward 
under  the  pure  white  flag  of  the  Redeemer's  standard ;  the  true 
CROSS  of  our  Blessed  Redeemer;  you  move  on  in  darkness  and  in 
blood,  under  the  standard  of  your  Prince  Abaddon,  "your  king 
the  angel  of  the  bottomless  pit."  But  I  must  pause. 
I  am.  Gentlemen, 

Your  wellwisher; 

W.  C.  BROWNLEE. 

Collegiate  Minister  of  the  Middle  and  North  Dutch  Churches. 

P.  S.  The  priests  in  their  second  challenge  chose  to  make  it  a 
condition  of  their  continuing  the  Controversy,  that  I  -should  aban^ 


325 

don  the  attack  on  their  system,  and  defend  tlie  Protestant  system, 
I  promptly  declined  obedience  to  thisunreasonahle  dictation:  being 
determined  to  ibrce  my  way  into  their  very  citadel;  and  into  the  in- 
terior ol'the  "Chambers  of  imagery."  They  have  declined  pnblisli- 
ingany  re})ly  to  me,  last  Saturday.  Having  prepared  the  preceding 
letter,  I  sent  a  card  on  Monday  morning  to  Mr.  Denman,  the  Cath- 
olic Editor,  requesting  him  to  say  whether  I  was  correct  in  under- 
standing the  information  conveyed  to  me  from  his  office,  through 
my  friend  Mr.  T.;  namely  that  no  more  was  to  be  published  by 
him,  on  either  side.  In  answer  to  this  Card,  I  received  a  letter, 
abusive  and  insulting;  while  the  writer  took  care  to  answer  me 
neither  negatively  nor  affirmat'ivehj.  I  replied  by  again  soliciting 
a  definite  answer,  whetlier  he  would  allow  me  to  go  on  as  usual, 
in  his  columns.  I  waited  two  hours  and  a  half  for  his  reply; 
none  came.  I  then  entered  into  arrangements  to  have  my  letters 
published  simultaneously,  in  the  three  papers  which  have  hitherto 
copied  them  from  the  Roman  Catholic  print;  and  at  the  same  time 
sent  a  copy  of  my  Letter  XTI.  to  the  office  of  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic paper.  And  it  is  proposed,  by  God's  grace  to  follow  up  the 
retreat  of  the  Priests,  by  a  letter  every  second  week,  until  the  end 
of  August;  and  then,  by  a  short  weekly  letter,  until  the  victory 
shall  be  complete.  W.  C,  B. 


Reply  of  I9r.  Power  ami  Mr.  Ijevins 
TO   DR.    BROWNLEE. 

No.  12. 

**  Hath  God  any  need  of  your  lie,  that  you  should  speak  deceitfully  for  him."    Job  13 — 7. 

Rev.  Sir, — In  your  letter  No.  4,  you  "  claimed  to  be  a  gentle- 
man and  the  Writer  for  the  members  of  the  Middle  Dutch  Church." 
Your  right  to  the  first  honorable  appellation  we  must  hesitate  to 
concede,  until  better  testimony  be  given  than  is  contained  in  your 
controversial  letters  on  your  Rule  of  Faith.  To  your  assumption 
of  the  high  distinction  of  "  writer,"  to  the  Middle  Dutch  Church 
we  shall  not  object,  provided  your  flock  and  "  virtucnis  ladies"  en- 
ter no  protest  against  the  legitimacy  of  your  logical  and  theologi- 
cal conclusions.  If  they  adopt  you  as  their  Writer,  we  say  with 
Cervantes, — "let  their  own  sin  be  their  punishment;  let  them 
chew  upon  it,  and  there  let  it  rest." 

Your  claims  to  be  ^gentleman,  we  said,  must  not  be  conceded. 
Why  ?  Because  truth  is  not  on  your  hps,  and  truth  is  the  first,  the 


326 

chiefest  element  in  the  character  of  a  gentleman.  In  the  com- 
monest intercourse  between  man  and  man,  he  who  offends  against 
truth  is  marked  and  shunned  as  a  degraded  being, — he  is  ejected 
as  an  outcast  from  among  men, — his  name  becomes  hateful,  and 
infamy  claims  him  as  her  own.  But,  if  this  be  the  degradation 
stamped  by  general  opinion  on  those  who  fill  no  exalted  station  in 
the  public  eye,  how  deeply  seared  will  not  the  Cain  mark  be  set 
on  his  forehead,  who,  by  profession,  should  inculcate  sacred  truth, 
whose  very  bread  is  derived  from  a  station  in  which  truth  should 
be  taught,  yet  violates  truth  in  the  most  sacred  cause — the  proba- 
tion and  defence  of  religion.  A  more  abandoned,  more  lost,  exis- 
tence cannot  enter  into  the  thoughts  of  man,  than  that  of  a  minis- 
ter of  religion  violating  that  subhme  character  of  religion,  truth, 
which  more  than  any  other,  constitutes  it  an  emanation  from  God. 
To  this  degraded  wretch,  whoever  he  may  be,  the  severe  words  ol 
Persius  may  be  applied, 

" caret  culpa;  nescit'quid  perdat,  et  alta 

Demersus,  summa  rursuni,  non  buUit  in  unda," — 

Pers.  Sal.  3. 

'"  guilt  cannot  now  be  imputed  to  him;  he  has  nothing  to  lose,  and 
is  plunged  so  deep  that  he  cannot  rise  even  to  bubble  on  the  sur- 
face of  the  stream." 

If  any  thing  in  the  preceding  remarks  bear  on  your  character, 
in  connexion  with  the  present  controversy,  the  application  is  left 
to  your  "  Christian  pubhc."  It  is  hoped  that  in  forming!the  esti- 
mate of  your  "claims  to  be  a  gentleman,^^  they  will  not  lightly  pass 
over  the  mysterious  theological  truths  contained  in  what  you 
arc  pleased  to  term  your  "  twenty-five  arguments  touching  (not 
refuting)  our  Rule  of  Faith:"  for  example,  your  "Paddy's  kettle," 
^nheDukeof  Brunswick,"  "St.  Patrick  sailing  to  Ireland  on  a 
millstone,"  "  St.  Denis  carrying  his  head  under  his  arm,"  "  the 
feast  of  the  Asses,"  "  the  purgatorial  crabs,"  "  the  Mufti's  chair," 
&c.  &c.  Here,  Rev.  Sir,  are  truths  of  an  invincible  order  to  es- 
tablish your  "  claims  to  be  a  gentleman,  a  mere  spice  of  your 
"  twenty-Jive  arguments  against  the  Catholic  Rule  of  Faith ! "  But 
there  are  two  of  those  "  twenty-five  arguments"  to  which  the 
"  Christian  public"  should  especially  attend,  as  truths  of  a  more 
eminent  order.  The  first  is,  your  gross,  unchristian,  and  false 
charge  against  the  poor  Catholic  servants  of  this  city; — the  other, 
your  sanction  of  the  obscene  tale,  Lorette^  which  in  the  words  of 
Hamlet  to  his  mother,  is 


That  blurs  the  grace  and  blush  of  mbdesty." 

In  this  last  txuth  you  have  partners  in  your  guilt — the  notorious 


327 

"  virtuous  ladies."     What  the  D has  joined,  let  no  man  sepa- 
rate. 

Consigning  the  estimate  of  your  character  as  a  "  Gentleman" 
and  the  Chesteriield  of  your  "  virluoifs  ladies"  to  the  "  Christian 
pubUc,"  we  enter  on  the  consideration  of  your  last  letter,  to  ascer- 
tain your  worth  as  a  "  /fVi/er,"  on  the  topic  to  which  you  have  been 
invited.     As  in  your  former  letters,  we  here  trace  the  same  pro- 
pensity to  ribald  phrase,  recklessness  of  truth,   foul  vituperation, 
and  untenable  assertion.     A  brief  ((uestion  might  have  been  an- 
swered without  betraying  the  infirmity  of  your  temper;    it  might 
have  been  answered  without  your  customary  display  of  "Protes- 
tant lesson  and  logic,"  without  saluting  your  polemic  opponents 
with  the  gentlemanly  terms,  "  notorious  and  publicly   convicted 
Deists;  more  vulgar  than  Thomas  Paine,  and  more  blasphemous 
than  Mons.  Voltaire."     But,  Rev.  Preacher  of  the  Middle  Dutch 
Church,  opprobi  ious  terms  and  ribald  invective,  though  they  indi- 
cate your  earthward  biasses  and  "  Protestant  lesson  and  logic,"  do 
not  establish  your  Rule  of  Faith  or  subvert  that  of  your  opponents. 
You  have  written  you  say  "  twenty-five  arguments  touching  the 
Cathohc  Rule  !"     Had  the  number  of  your  arguments  been  "  le- 
gion," and  did  they,  like  your  twenty-five,  abound  in  falsehood  and 
farcical  tales,  the  Catholic  creed,  in  place  of  being  subverted, 
would  stand  only  on  a  more  exalted  eminence  in  the  eyes  of  your 
"  Christian  public."     You  compliment  your  letters  as  arguments. 
\i falsehood  and  ludicrous  narration  be  argument,  your  letters  merit 
the  honorable  title.     But  we  say  in  the  face  of  your  "  Christian 
public" — and,  when  the  matter  in  the  logical  order  of  dependency 
shall  have  been  discussed,  it  will  be  proved,  that  from  your  gas- 
conade "  challenge"  to  the  Cathohc  Bishop  and  Priests  of  New 
York,  to  the  last  paragraphs,  the   "  Purgatorial  crabs"  and  the 
"  Mufti's  chair"  in  your  letter  No.  11,  there  are  not  ten  consecu- 
tive lines  in  your  eleven  letters,  that  do  not  contain  either  a  DELis- 

ERATE     FALSEHOOD,  OR  A  PROOFLESS  ASSERTION.       This  will  be  amply 

proved  ere  the  present  controversy  be  closed. 

It  may,  perhaps,  be  considered  by  your  "  virtuous  ladies"  a 
harsh  application  of  terms,  when  we  designate  your  letters  a 
mass  of  deliberate  falsehoods  and  proofless  assertions.  This  topic 
was  alluded  to  in  a  former  letter.  It  was  said,  that,  no  Christian 
law  is  infringed  when  justice  is  dispensed  ; — That  the  negro  must 
be  painted  black.  If  the  New  Zealander  be  described,  the  tattoo 
traces  on  his  face  must  not  be  forgotten.  When  wilful  falsehood 
is  used  by  a  preacher  in  the  most  sacred  cause  that  can  be  under- 
taken by  man — Religion;  when  it  is  used  to  subvert  the  creed  of 
his  neighbor  and  u[>hold  his  own,  then  the  strict  and  honest  appli- 
cation for  this  j)reacher,  though  he  may  be  a  Chesterfield  among 
"  virtuous  ladies,"  is — liar  ;  no  other  word  can  designate  the  real 


328 

character  of  the  man.  But,  if  this  meanness  and  dishonor,  the 
utterance  of  deliberate  falsehood,  he  attempt  to  fortify  with  the 
authority  of  texts  from  the  Sacred  Writings,  then  we  would  apply 
to  him  the  words  of  Antonio  in  the  "  Merchant  of  Venice.'* 

"  The  Devil  can  cite  Scripture  for  his  purpose. 
An  evil  soul,  producing  Jioly  witness, 
Is  like  a  villain  with  a  smiling  cheek." 

You  thus  commence  your  last  letter,  "  You  have  honored  me 
with  a  card,  containing  afresh  challenge.''^  We  did  not  express  a 
challenge;  this  term  was  not  used  by  us.  The  gasconade  of 
"  challenge"  we  resign  to  you,  for  with  you  it  commenced.  We 
merely  asked  you  a  A^ery  simple  and  plain  question, — a  question 
immediately  derived  from  the  matter  under  discussion — your 
Rule  of  Faith.  Your  meaning  in  using  the  term  "  challenge,"  it 
is  not  difficult  to  evolve ;  it  does  not  require  the  aid  of  "  parallel 
passages."  Urged  either  by  a  desire  to  acquire  a  name  by  an 
ultra  exhibition  of  zealotry  for  your  Calvinistic  creed,  and  thus 
stand  a  distinguished  sentinel  on  the  ramparts  oi  the  Middle  Dutch 
Church  above  your  more  modest  clerical  brethren ;  or,  possibly, 
impelled  by  malignancy  of  will  against  Catholics,  you  chivalrous- 
ly blew  a  blast  on  the  trumpet  of  your  Zion,  and  challenged  the 
Catholic  Bishop  and  Priests  to  a  polemic  tournament.  You  have 
written  eleven  letters,  and  patented  "  twenty-five  arguments" 
against  the  Catholic  religion,  and  yet  this  religion  is  not  yet  sub- 
verted, the  rock  on  which  its  foundation  reposes  is  not  yet  cleft ! 
"Paddy's  kettle"  has  sunk  to  the  lowest  depths  of  the  deep;  the  se- 
crets of  the  Pope's  exchequer  book  have  been  revealed;  the  "  pleas- 
ant joke"  of  the  Priest's  celibacy  has  been  sensitively  insinuated; 
the  mysterious  allusions  in  the  obscene  tale  Lorette,  have  been 
expounded  by  a  holy  preacher  to  "  virtuous  ladies  ;"  the  Cathohc 
servants  have  been  denounced  in  the  s^nrit  of  St.  Paul's  charity; 
the  "Purgatorial  crabs"  have  crawled  at  an  "  evening  mass"  and 
the  "Mufti's  chair"  has  been  discovered,  yet,  the  foundation  of 
the  Catholic  Rule  of  Faith  rests  as  solid  in  its  eternal  strength,  as 
on  the  eve  before  the  redoubtable  Preacher  Brownlee  of  the 
Middle  Dutch  Church  proclaimed  his  "  Challe?ige;'^  the  walls  oi 
St.  Patrick's  Cathedral  are  as  free  from  fissure  as  if  they  had  not 
been  pelted  by  the  Preacher's  "  parallel  passages"  from  kis  "He- 
brew and  Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost ! " 

The  mighty  secret.  Rev.  Preacher,  involved  in  your  apphcation 
of  the  term  "  challejige"  to  our  plain  and  concise  question  is,  you 
seek  to  avoid  the  opprobrium  you  have  incurred  in  the  late  polem- 
ic contest.  You  challenged, — you  promised  much, — you  have 
failed,  you  have  been  defeated  !  The  term  "  challenge"  is  now 
as  hateful  to  you,  an  allusion  to  it  as  teasing,  as  a  hint  about  the 
fulhng  mills  from  Sancho  was  to  Don  Quixotte,  and,  perchance, 


329 

when  an  unlucky  allusion  is  made  to  it,  your  condition  may  not 
widely  ditier  iVoni  tiiat  mysteriously  indicated  by  the  observation 
of  the  worthy  knight,  when  he  addressed  his  scjuire  "  with  a  kind 
of  snutlling  tone,  and  said — methinks  Sancho,  you  are  in  great 
bodily  fear." 

For  the  solution  of  Don  Quixote's  suspicions  of  Sancho's  bodily 
fear,  we  refer  you,  worthy  Preacher,  to  the  inimitable  Cervante  s 
the  cause  o^ your  fearw^c  state  to  the"  Christian  public,"  it  is,  the 
consciousness  of  the  "hook  being  in  your  nose."  Remove  it  if 
you  can,  and  let  the  following  argument  be  the  subject  of  your 
first  experiment.  It  has,  already,  been  presented  to  you,  and 
though  often  rcj)cated,  has  not  yet  been  answered.  It  is  not  what 
you  would  term  a  "  new  idea"  but,  until  the  crabbed  difficulties  in- 
herent in  old  ideas  are  removed,  the  difficulties  remain  in  all  their 
force.  As  a  distinction  mark,  we  shall  honor  it  with  a  phrase 
from  your  own  Scripture  text,  and  call  it  the 
"  Hook  in  your  Nose." 

In  your  Letter  No.  2,  you  write,  "  the  only  Rule  of  Faith  with 
every  Protestant  is — the  Bible."  From  this  it  follows,  that  you  do 
not  believe  any  thing  with  divi?ie  faith  but  what  is  found  in  the 
Bible.  But  the  divine  character  of  the  Bible  is  not  found  in  the 
Bible,  that  is,  the  Bible  cannot  prove  its  own  divine  character. 
Therefore,  you.  Preacher  Brownlee,  or  any  Protestant  adopting 
your  Protestant  Rule,  do  not  believe  in  the  divine  character  of  the 
Bible  wqth  divine  faith.  But,  since  the  articles  of  your  creed  are 
taken  from  a  book  in  which  you  do  not  believe  with  divine  faith, 
you  do  not  believe  in  your  articles  of  creed  with  divine  faith; 
therefore,  your  articles  of  creed  being  divested'  of  all  divine  char- 
acter, your  religion  is  not  divine ;  therefore,  your  Rule  of  Faith 
LEADS  directly  and  ?iecessarily  to  Deism  and  Infidelity!  Thus, 
Rev.  Preacher  and  Erudite  in  the  "  Hebrew  and  Greek  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  is  the  "  hook  in  your  nose^  Disengage  it  if  you  can. 
If  this  syllogistic  reasoning  be  false,  prove  it.  Until  then,  you  are 
a  Deist  or  an  Infidel  by  your  own  Protestant  Rule  of  Faith. 

In  your  last  Letter  you  assume  a  new  character.  Not  content 
with  ambitioning  the  honored  name  of  "  Gentleman,^'  and  dubbing 
yourself  the  "  ?^n7er"  to  the  Middle  Dutch  Church,  not  satisfied 
with  monopolizing  the  "  Hebrew  and  Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost/* 
and,  possibly,  the  Gr^ca  Majora,  you  now  exhibit  yourself  as 
quack  practitioner  in  the  art  of  healing  the  dislocations  of  vvords 
and  sentences.  Your  first  empirical  essay  has  been  on  our  sinless 
proposition.  If  it  has  not  been  healed  by  your  skill,  it  lias  been 
tortured.  A  little  patience  while  we  expose  the  errors  of  your 
process.  Our  proposition  was,  "  What  articles  of  fntith,  found  in 
the  Scripture  in  express  terms,  must  be  believed  '^n  order  to  he 
f;aved."  You  assert  this  is  "  ungrammatical  aiJ^d  blundering!*' 
42 


330 

How  do  you  prove  it  ?  By  a  shameless  and  dishonest  interpola- 
tion, for  you  thus  stale  the  proposition,  what  articles  must  be  be- 
lieved in  order  to  their  beuig  saved  !  The  word  be  in  our  proposi- 
tion you  change  to — their  being.  Hence,  what  is  "  blundering  and 
ungrammatical"  is  your  own  dishonest  interpolation.  But  you 
are  asked,  if  you  know  any  thing  of  the  merest  elements  of  gram- 
mar, is  it  either  blundering  or  ungrammatical  to  have  that  under- 
stood in  a  sentence,  which  common  sense,  without  the  chance  of 
error  or  confusion,  easily  supplies'?  Now  mark  the  final  member 
of  the  proposition:  it  is  this, — "  must  be  believed  in  order  to  be 
saved."  Believed  by  whom  ?  By  men,  therefore,  the  final  mem- 
ber is,  when  interpreted  by  the  merest  schoolboy's  grammar  and 
sense,  "  must  be  believed  by  men  in  order  that  men  be  saved." 
But,  by  your  interpretation,  you  substitute  articles  for  men^  and 
then  the  proposition  will  stand  thus,  "  what  articles  must  be  be- 
lieved by  articles  in  order  to  their  being  saved."  Here  you  invest 
articles  with  the  rational  faculty  of  forming  acts  of  belief!  This 
transcends  even  the  inventive  genius  of  your  countryman  McGav- 
in,  who  forged  the  story  of  the  "  Purgatorial  crabs,"  and  made 
Priests  "  perform  mass  seated  7iear  the  altar,  and  this  too,  "  i?i  the 
evening!" 

Your  failure  in  your  new  profession — setting  the  dislocations 
of  words  and  sentences — is  as  unfortunate  as  your  probation  and 
defence  of  your  Rule  of  Faith.  You  possess  eminent  qualifica- 
tions to  be  admitted  in  the  procession  of  the  next  Feast  of  Asses 
around  St.  Patrick's  ("athedral.  You  have  claims  that  cannot  be 
resisted;  even  Sancho's  Dapple  would  shrink  from  a  rivalry.  As 
a  pledge  of  our  intention  to  admit  you  into  the  procession  we 
greet  you  with  one  of  your  own  classical  and  inimitable  stanzas. 

**  The  Preacher  was  born  and  bred  with  long  ears  ; 

Heigh-ho  my  Assy, 

And  still  the  Preacher  of  Asses  appears. 

Bray,  Preacher  Ass,  and  you  shall  get  grass. 

And  straw, and  liay  too,  in  plenty." 

From  the  daring  and  blundering  interpolation  practised  by  you 
on  our  simple  and  plain  proposition,  it  is  no  trespass  against  the 
precept  of  charity  to  suspect,  that,  very  false  interpretations  oi  the 
"  Hebrew  and  Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost"  are  given  by  you  from 
your  pulpit  in  the  Middle  Dutch  Church.  We,  at  least,  would 
not  rank  them  among  those  whispered  by  the  interior  spirit.  He 
who  would  sacrifice  truth  in  triviaHnstances,  will,  by  easy  transi- 
tion, pass  to  the  violation  of  truth  in  important  matters.  The  hint. 
Rev.  and  veracious  Preacher,  is  suggested  to  the  members  of  the 
Middle  Dutch  Church;  and,  if  any  among  them  will  but  exercise 
their  common  sense  in  the  art  of  criticism,  illustration  of  the  pre- 
ceding remark  will  be  found  to  the  amplest  extent  in  your  eleven 


331 

letters  and  "  twenty-five  arguments  tottckhig  the  Catholic  Rule  of 
Faith."  You  have  failed  in  proving  and  defending  your  Rule  of 
Faith,  you  have  failed  in  the  craft  of  interpolating  our  proposition 
on  the  express  articles  of  faith  contained  in  the  Bible;  it  is  time  to 
ascertain  the  worth  of  your  answer  to  our  query,  wilfully  misnam- 
ed by  you  "challenge." 

Our  proposition  required  from  you  a  numeration  of  your  arti- 
cles of  faith  found  in  the  Scriptures  in  express  terms.  Though  un- 
willingly, you  have  selected  them.  With  your  permission,  they 
shall  be  designated  the  profession  of  faith  of  Preacher  Brownlee 
found  in  the  Bible  in  express  terms ;  and  to  aid  in  the  extension 
of  your  theological  and  biblical  fame,  we  present  it,  not  -'curtail- 
ed  of  its  fair  proportions,"  to  the  "Christian  public."  It  is  hoped 
they  will  note  its  Calvinistic  orthodoxy.  What  will  the  ghost  of 
John  Calvin  say?  You  introduce  your  profession  of  faith  by  the 
following  words, — "The  articles  of  faith  put  forth  in  express 
terms  in  the  Scriptures,  and  necessary  to  be  believed  by  ns,  in  order 
to  our  salvation  are  these  :" 

"Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved." 
"He  that  is  believeth  and  is  baptised,  shall  be  saved:  he  that  be- 
lieveth  not  shall  be  damned."  "Show  ye  forth  the  Lord's  death, 
until  he  come,"  "Do  this  (celebrate  the  Eucharist)  "in  remem- 
brance of  me."  "This  is  life  eternal  to  know  thee  the  one  true 
God,  and  Jesus  Christ,  whom  thou  hast  sent."  "God  so  loved  the 
world,  that  he  sent  his  only  begotten  Son  into  the  world,  that  the 
world  through  him  might  be  saved,"  "If  thou  shalt  believe  in 
thine  heart,  and  confess  with  thy  mouth  the  Lord  Jesus,  thou 
shalt  be  saved."  "Except  a  man  be  born  of  the  water,  and  of 
the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  -"Ex- 
cept ye  repent,  ye  shall  all  likewise  perish."  "Walking  in  all  the 
commandments,  and  ordinances  of  the  Lord  blameless," — "thou 
shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy 
soul,  and  with  all  thy  strength,  and  thy  neighbour,  as  thyself" 
"We  are  justified  by  the  faith  of  Jesus  Christ;  and  not  by  the 
works  of  the  law."  "By  the  works  of  the  law  shall  no  flesh  liv- 
ing be  justified,"  that  is,  before  God,  our  Heavenly  Father:  "by 
works,"  the  fruits  of  holiness,  is  a  man  justified,  and  "not  by  faith 
only,"  says  St.  James :  that  is,  before  me?i,  we  give  evidence  of 
justification  by  our  piety  and  holiness.  By  faith  in  "Christ's  im- 
puted righteousness  alone,  without  works,  are  we  justified  at  the 
bar  of  God,  in  our  justification,  before  God.  Thus,  Paul  and 
James  are  reconciled;  and  plainly  too,  even  to  an  infant  scho- 
lar !  " 

In  the  name  of  common  sense,  can  this  be  your  creed?  From 
your  ultra  zealotry  for  Calvinism,  we  thought  the  great  and  fun- 
damental mystery  of  the  Christian  rehgion  was  believed  by  you. 


332 

Does  this  profession  of  faith  say  that  you  believe  in  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  ?  Does  it  say  that  you  beheve  in  the  incarnation 
of  the  Son  of  God  ?  Does  it  say,  that  you  beheve  in  the  proces- 
sion of  the  Holy  Ghost  from  the  Father  and  the  Son  1  Not  a 
word  about  these  all  important  points  !  Why  this  deep  silence, 
Rev.  Sir?  Is  it  that  your  Rule  of  Faith  has  nothing  explicit 
on  them  ?  We  expect  a  reply  to  this  question.  Do  not  misname 
it  a  challenge. 

Believe,  says  Preacher  Brovv^nlee,  in  Christ,  believe  in  baptism, 
and  celebrate  the  Eucharist:  you  will  be  saved.  You  tell  us  to 
believe  in  Christ,  without  teUing  us  what  we  are  to  believe  of 
him.  In  the  Preacher's  first  text  there  is  nothing  definite  except 
to  believe  in  Christ,  and  this  may  be  interpreted,  believe  in  Christ's 
divinity  you  are  a  Christian  and  will  be  saved.  Believe  in  bap- 
tism, believe  as  [  do,  who  baptise  infants,  and  you  will  be  saved  ; 
do  not  believe  in  it  as  I  do,  but  believe  in  it  as  the  Baptists  believe 
it,  and  you  are  still  a  Christian,  for  all  this  is  found  in  the  Bible! 
Such,  Sir,  is  your  consistent  creed,  and  if  such  Theology  do  not 
argue  a  "derangement  'n  the  moral  faculty"  we  know  not  the 
meaning  of  the  phrase. 

The  absurdities  are  many  to  which  you  have  been  led  by  your 
^'Protestant  lesson  and  logic."  The  absurdity  involved  in  your 
profession  of  faith  is  the  grossest  of  all.  If  it  were  sufficient  for 
salvation,  to  believe  in  Christ,  in  baptism,  and  the  Eucharist,  the 
three  points  vaguely  specified  in  your  act  of  faith,  this  great  ab- 
surdity would  follow, — viz.  that  all  heretics  who  have  been  con- 
demned by  the  Catholic  Church,  were  unjustly  condemned; — 
and,  that,  notwithstanding  their  heresies  and  condemnation,  they 
lived  and  died  in  the  state  of  salvation.  Mark  our  proof  The 
Arians  professed  to  believe  in  Christ ;  they  believed  he  was  the 
only  Son  of  God  the  Father,  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  our 
Lord.  They  denied  his  consubstantiality,  for  the  same  reason 
that  you  deny  Transubstantiation,  the  term  not  being  found  in 
Scripture,  and  for  this  they  were  condemned  by  the  church  in 
the  first  general  Council. 

The  Nestorians  said  they  believed  all  that  the  Orthodox  Church 
taught  of  our  Saviour  Christ  Jesus,  and  all  the  other  articles  of 
the  Apostles  Creed,  but  they  erred  by  saying,  that  he  had  two 
distinct  persons. 

The  Appollinarists  said  they  professed  all  the  articles  of  Cath- 
olic faith,  yet  swerved  from  it  by  maintaining,  that  our  Saviour 
had  no  human  soul. 

Eutyches  and  his  followers  professed  to  believe  the  Apostles 
Creed,  but  they  erred  by  saying  that  the  flesh  of  Christ  was  turn- 
ed into  his  divine  nature. 

The  Macedonians  declared  they  held  the  Orthodox  faith  but 


333 

erred  in  believing  the  Holy  Ghost  to  be  less  than  the  Son.  The 
Pelagians  did  not  deny  Christ  or  any  articles  of  the  Apostles 
Creed.  From  the  examples  thus  given,  we  frame  this  argumentj 
— mark  it  well.  If  it  were  sufficient  for  salvation  to  believe  in 
God  our  Creator,  and  in  Jesus  our  Redeemer,  with  other  articles 
expressed  in  your  creed  :  then  were  the  Arians,  Macedonians, 
Pelagians,  and  all  those  already  mentioned,  notwithstanding  their 
obstinate  adherence  to  their  condemned  heresies  in  a  state  of  sal- 
vation. But  to  hold  that  any  of  those  heretics,  dying  in  their  her- 
esies, died  in  a  state  of  salvation,  is  to  condemn  all  pure  antiquity, 
is  to  condemn  the  church  of  Christ,  who  cast  out  those  erring 
men  as  heretics  and  the  professed  enemies  of  her  holy  Spouse* 
Is  it  not,  therefore  clear,  that  men  may  be  most  wicked  and 
damnable  heretics,  though  they  profess  to  believe  in  Christ,  and 
in  the  other  articles  of  your  creed,  if  they  walfully  defend  any  other 
erroneous  doctrine  contrary  to  the  trutli  revealed  by  God  and  so 
declared  to  us  by  the  Catholic  Church.  "No  person  says  St.  Au- 
gustine is  a  member  of  the  Catholic  Church,  who  obstinately  be- 
lieves any  falsehood  in  matters  of  faith,  knowing  it  to  be  such." 
See  St.  Aug,  Lib.  9.  in  Matth.  9.  ii.  And  that  man  of  God,  Doc- 
tor Martin  Luther,  says,  "that  it  shall  profit  the  Calvinist  nothing, 
to  believe  in  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  so  long  as 
with  blasphemous  mouth  they  deny  this  article  of  faith,  which 
Christ  has  proposed  to  us  with  his  own  mouth,  "this  is  my  body, 
which  shall  be  given  for  you."  Luth.  lib.  quod  verba  Christi. 
Here  you  see  that  no  salvation  is  possible  if  you  deny  any  one 
article  revealed  by  the  Saviour  of  the  world?  Does  not  your  si- 
lence on  the  many  points  of  Christian  belief  intimate  that  you 
teach  that  Christians  may  admit  or  reject  them  as  they  please? 
Thus  it  is  God  has  been  dishonoured  by  such  usurpers,  and  re- 
ligious experimentalists  as  you,  w^ho  in  defiance  of  his  own' 
prohibition,  invade  the  one  fold  which  has  been  purchased  by 
the  sacred  blood  of  his  only  Son ! 

In  a  former  letter,  Rev.  Preacher,  we  convicted  you  of  Nestos 
rian  heresy.  Your  New  profession  of  faith,  stated  in  the  EXPREse 
jterms  of  the  Bible,  proves  that  you  do  not  believe  either  in  that 
Holy  Trinity  or  the  Incarnation  !  Alas,  there  will  be  "heard  a 
voice  in  Rama,  lamentations  and  great  mourning,"  the  "virtu- 
ous ladies"  bewailing  their  own  lost  Chesterfield,  "and  would  no 

be  comforted,  because" !     This  profession   of  Faith  will 

prove.  Rev.  Sir,  another  teasing  "hook  in  your  nose."  Permit  us 
to  ask  a  brief  question  in  reference  to  your  articles  of  creed  de- 
duced in  EXPRESS  terms  from  the  Bible  ; — we  do  not  mean  a  "chal- 
lenge." What  article  of  Catholic  faith  is  cOiVTRADicTED  by  the 
EXPRESS  texts  of  Scripture  inserted  in  your  new  creed  ?  Let  this 
be  noted  by  your  "Christian  public."     You  will  confer  a  favour 


334 

on  us  by  indicating  the  parts  of  the  Bible  from  which  you  have 
selected  your  articles  of  faith.  This  will  prevent  cavil — perhaps 
subterfuge.  We  are  vour  obedient  servants, 

JOHN  POWER. 
THOMAS  C.  LEVINS. 
July  2Sd,  1833. 


Hr.  MSrownlee^s  Ijetter^  .TVo.  13. 

TO  T)RS.  POWER,  YxlKELA,  &  MR.  LEVINS. 

"  Ante  Nicaenum  Concilium  sibi  quisque  vivebat:  Etad  Romanam  Ecclesiam  parvus  habe 
batun  respectus  " — vEneas  Sylvius,  Pope  Piug  ii.  Epis.  288. 

Gentlemen  : — I  have  carefully  read  your  12th  letter  on  the  27th 
of  July.  You  are  heartily  welcome  back  again  after  your  tem- 
porary retreat.  Stand  to  your  post,  I  exhort  you,  as  good  Rom- 
ans ;  we  are  only  beginning  the  tug  of  w^ar.  But  seriously,  I 
thank  you  for  your  letter.  It  helps  on  my  cause  marvellously. 
What  a  miserable  cause  must  yours  be,  when  Bishop  Dubois' 
THREE  select  champions  can  venture  out,  before  an  American  pub- 
lic, with  such  a  production  as  this  is !  But  I  thank  you  for  it;  it 
estabhshes  all  I  have  advanced  relative  to  your  notorious  deism. 
The  evidence  is  now  fuUand  running  over.  Accept  my  thanks 
for  your  aid  lent  to  the  Protestant  cause. 

I  agree  with  you  also,  very  cordially,  in  believing  that  no  small 
degree  of  degradation  attaches  itself  to  the  labor  of  detailing,  out 
of  your  books,  the  accounts  respecting  "  the  Duke  of  Brunswick," 
"  And  St.  Patrick's  miracles,"  and  "  St.  Denis'  carrying  his  own 
head,  after  he  was  beheaded,"  "and  your  Du  Cangis'  account  of 
your  famous  feast  of  the  Asses,"  and  the  true  "account  of  the 
Purgatorial  crabs,  with  the  sacerdotal  velvet  coats,"  and  "St. 
Peter's  chair  plundered  from  a  Mufti's  mosque."  I  admit  that  it 
is  degrading  in  your  historians  to  detail  them.  And  one  really 
feels  himself  lowered  to  be  compelled  to  quote  such  trash  !  But 
then  what  must  be  the  infinitude  of  the  degradation  of  that  "  infal- 
lible Pope,"  and  that  "  infallible  church,"  and  of  those  "infallible 
priests  of  Rome,"  who  have  gravely  recorded  all  this  contempti- 
ble imposition  in  their  devotional  books, — ay,  in  their  breviary  : 
and  do  solemnly  command  their  votaries  to  believe  it  all,  on  pain 
of  damnation  !  Yes,  your  hypocrisy  affects  to  deny  all  these  ! 
You  affect,  in  matchless  assurance,  to  treat  them  as  fictions  !  This 
is  pure  homage  to  our  enlightened  American  public;  and  an  item 
of  that  Jesuitism  by  which  all  Roman  Priests  are  sworn  to  con- 
ceal their  real  tenets  and  rites  from  the  eyes  of  Protestants  and 


335 

Republicans.  You  and  your  bishop  know  that  ifyou  were  in  Ita- 
ly, or  in  Spain,  and  ventured  on  the  disbelief  of  these  same  mira- 
cles :  or  even  the  allectation  ol'  ridiculing  them  before  enligjitened 
nnen  : — yes,  if  you  were  heretic  enough,  in  Spain,  to  smile  at  the 
headless  St.  Denis  carrying  his  head  under  his  arm;  or  at  the  edi- 
fying tales  of  other  Saints  sailing  over  the  sea  on  their  cloaks, 
with  their  com])anions  for  ballast,  you  would  forthw^ith  be  the  in 
mates  of  dungeons ;  and  escai)e  burning  only  by  a  well  timed  re 
cantation  on  your  knees  ! 

Your  grave  defence  of  your  ungrammatical  and  blundering 
Card,  sets  all  gravity  at  defiance.  How^ever,  you  have  here,  even 
in  this  small  item,  show^n  yourselves  good  '^  Catholics"  enough,  and 
faithful,  even  to  stubbornness.  "  Holy  Mother,"  and  her  sons  are 
clothed,  if  we  may  take  their  own  word  for  it — with  the  attribute 
of  "  immutability."  And  being  "  immutable,"  the  lofty  perfection 
must  not  be  surrendered  to  confess  an  error.  On  your  tenets  it  is 
a  crime  to  confess  an  error,  even  when  you  are  conscious  that  you 
are  wrong  ! ! 

Your  "  ultra  zealotry,"  is  "  ambitioning"  too  much,  to  use  yonr 
own  classic  style,  when  you  find  fault  w  ith  my  scriptural  creed  ; 
or  indeed  any  Christian  creed.  The  Christian  pubhc  cannot  but 
smile  at  three  men,  publicly  convicted  of  open  and  avowed  deism 
affecting  to  sit  in  judgment  on  a  Christian  creed  ! ! ! 

In  fine,  as  there  is  not  one  new  idea  in  all  your  letter;  though 
"  concocted"  by  three  heads :  and  as  I  have  proposed  to  my- 
self to  go  forward  into  ''  Holy  Mother's"  chambers  of  imagina- 
ry, even  were  its  entrance  guarded  by  Cerberus,  with  its  three 
heads.  I  shall  go  on  with  the  regular  discussion.  We  noticed 
in  our  last  letter,  your  idol  claims  to  antiquity  and  Catholicity.  I 
have  now  to  observe, 

3d.  That  Succession"  is  another  mark  claimed  by  the  exclusive 
Roman  Catholic  sect.  By  this  their  writers  mean  to  convey  the 
idea,  that  their  sect  aloiie  is  that  church  to  which  Christ  gave  the 
promise.  "  I  am  with  you  : "  and  the  assurance  "  that  the  gates  of 
hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it."  They  alone,  say  they,  have  the 
direct  lineal  succession  from  Christ  by  St.  Peter,  and  the  other 
popes  :  all  the  other  claimants  in  the  Greek  Church,  the  Syriac,  the 
African,  the  Old  Italick,  the  Waldcnsian,  and  Protestant  Church, 
are  all  to  a  man  '^damnable  heretics,  for  which  there  is  no  salvation; 
it  being  impossible  that  God  can  save  any  except  Roman  Catholics. 
This  is  the  genuine  and  immutable  doctrine  of  the  Roman  sect! 
And  you  dare  not  deny  it  before  the  American  public  \ 

I  will  not  discuss  here,  the  question  of  ordi?iation.  1  simply  ob- 
serve that  we  advocate  it  on  gospel  principles;  and  reject  with 
abhorrence,  the  superstitions  and  fanatical  rite  which  Romish 
priests  are  pleased  to  call  ordination  and  consecration!     It  has  no 


336 

more  authority  from  Christ  the  only  Head  of  the  Church,  than 
has  any  rite  of  Mohammed,  or  the  Uving  idol  of  Thibet.  This  we 
noticed  formerly.  There  must  be  a  call  of  God's  providence.  (Heb. 
5.  4.)  and  a  call  of  the  church  given  to  a  pastor, — "  Come  over 
and  help  us."  The  man  who  wants  these,  has  no  right  before 
God,  or  the  Church,  to  ordination.  He  who  wants  these,  "climbs 
up  another  way,"  and  has  the  seal  of  reprobation  branded  on  his 
forehead,  "  as  a  thief  and  a  robber."  Such  is  the  appointment 
and  destination  of  the  Roman  Priest  by  his  bishop:  no  call,  no 
consent  of  "the  church,"  is  asked  for:  they  are  ipso  facto,  usurpers 
put  "  into  livings,"  by  ghostly  tyranny,  and  usurped  power.  The 
whole  system  is  a  conspiracy  against  Christ's  crown  and  authori- 
ty, and  an  outrage  on  the  consciences,  and  rights  of  men  ! 

In  their  claims  oi succession,  the  Roman  sect  ludicrously  assert 
that  they  have  an  unbroken  line  of  descent  from  "  Christ  the  first 
pope,"  through  "St  Peter  the  second  pope,"  down  to  this  day  ! ! 
This  is  ingeniously  figured  forth,  and  proved,  by  a  painting  to  be 
seen  in  Roman  Catholic  families;  and  which  was  described  to  me 
the  other  day,  by  a  friend  of  mine,  to  whom  it  was  shown  in  Phil- 
ladelphia.  In  this  portion  of  their  "genuine  tradition,"  strong 
as  proofs  of  holy  writ,  Christ  is  represented  as  ascending;  and  a 
stream  of  his  blood  is  issuing  in  an  arched  line  from  its  veins;  and 
is  entering  into  the  veins  of  St.  Peter ;  and  through  him  into  the 
veins  of  the  popes,  in  regular  succession!  Hence  they  are  the 
genuine  successors  "6?/  hlood  relationship.''''  And  this  morsel  of 
tradition,  ingeniously  committed  to  paper,  is  more  firmly  believed 
by  "the  simple  faithful,"  than  is  any  passage  in  all  the  New 
Testament !  Such  is  the  force  of  invincible  but  culpable  igno- 
rance. 

Now,  to  reap  any  benefit  from  "the  succession,  one  would  na- 
turally-suppose  that  the  "universal  particular  Church  of  Rome," 
should,  first,  prove  their  succession  ; — and  then  prove  their  exclu- 
sive  succession.  For  he  who  claims  all  the  inheritance,  and 
leaves  none  to  any  other,  must  of  course,  prove  that  no  one  but 
himself  is  heir.  But  unfortunately  for  these  exclusive  claims  of 
the  Roman  bigots,  the  Greek  Church  has  genuine  apostohcal  de- 
scent. The  Church  at  Alexandria,  in  Egypt,  had  it ;  the  most 
ancient  and  famous  Church  at  Antioch  has  it,  and  has 
its  Patriarch  sitting  in  St.  Peter's  chair  to  this  day;  also  the 
Church  of  Africa,  once  so  famous;  and  through  the  genuine  Old 
Italick  Church,  from  which  your  sect  apostatized  the  Waldenses 
had  their  true,  apostolical  succession.  And  then  hear  the  words 
of  your  own  Pope  Gregory  I.  of  whose  writings,  you  and  your 
bishops  are  so  scandalously  ignorant.  That  "Saint"  and  Pope 
has  declared,  and  you  ought  to  know  it,  that  "St  Peter's  prima- 
cy descended  to  three  bishopricks,  namely,  that  of  Antioch  of  AI-' 


337 

exandria,  and  of  Rome.  Sec  Iiis  Epis.  40.  Lib.  7.  Tom.  2.  p.  887. 
Paris  Edit,  of  1705.  And,  moreover  Jie  pronounces  the  title  and 
claims  of  ^^Supranc  and  rwivcrsal  hishop,^^  to  be  the  invention  of 
Antichrist,  wlio  was  already  in  the  world."  Eve\i  a  priest's  ifrno- 
rance  cannot  deny  tiiat  St.  Gregory  the  Pope  wrote  this.  Now, 
if  you  believe  him,  you  must  renounce  your  exclusive  succession:  if 
you  do  not  belieye  him,  then  do  you  pronounce  him  a  lying  here- 
tic :  and  therclore  "the  infalhble"  *'holy  mother  and  pope,"  who 
canonized  him,  and  "the  infallible  and  immutable  Holy  mother 
Church"  who  worships  him  on  his  saintly  day,  is  no  more  infalli' 
hie  ajid  immutable  !  Choose  ye  with  which  horn  of  this  dilemma, 
you  shall  be  pierced,  and  ecclesiastically  slain ! 

You  arc  perfectly  aware  that  no  historical  evidence  has  ever 
been  produced  by  your  writers  that  Peter  ever  was  at  Rome. 
Every  intelligent  Roman  Catholic  is  fully  aware  that  it  rests 
solely  on  the  fictions  of  interested  priests.  Several  writers  have 
on  our  side  of  the  question,  entered  into  accurate  chronological 
arguments  to  show  that  Peter  never  was  there,  as  a  presiding 
teacher.  I  beg  to  refer  to  Willet's  Synopsis  Papismi,  p.  141. 
There  is  no  evidence  in  the  Bible  that  Peter  ever  was  at  Rome  ; 
far  less  that  he  was  a  Pope !  If  he  was  Pope,  how  utterly  inex- 
cusable, undutiful,  and  wicked,  must  St.  Paul  have  been:  who 
resided  there  so  long  ;  and  never  had  the  grace  or  good  manners 
to  salute  him,  or  send  his  due  pontifical  salutations,  or  even  to 
mention  the  name  of  "//te  lord  your  god  Pope  Peter!'"'  Nay,  if  "lord 
Peter"  had  been  pope,  he  must  have  been  a  most  unprincipled 
man.  For  Paul,  when  brought  before  Nero,  at  least  two  years 
before  Peter's  death,  says,  "At  my  first  answer  no  man  stood  by 
me:  but  all  men  forsook  me  :  J  pray  God  that  it  may  not  be  laid 
to  their  charge."  Now,  you  must  admit,  either  that  "lord  Peter," 
was  not  Pope,  and  not  even  present  in  Rome  ;  or  that  he  was  a 
foul  traitor  to  Christ,  and  the  cause  for  which  Paul  was  nobly 
suffering !  You  insist  on  it  that  he  was  present :  that  he  was 
Pope.  Therefore  you  and  "the  Holy  Mother  Church"  are  the 
most  notorious  slanderers  and  revilers  of  your  own  Pope  Peter ! 
Besides  it  is  singular  that  your  wTiters  should  betray  such  ig- 
norance of  your  own  Canons.  I  beg  you  to  look  into  Decret. 
pars.  I.  Cap.  2.  Anacletus,  &c.  These  canons  make  your  ridic- 
ulous fictions  about  Peter's  headship,  stand  out  in  bold  relief.  I 
shall  quote  the  Canon, — "Arnbo  Ecclesiam,  &lc.  Both  Paul  and 
Peter  did  consecrate  the  Roman  Church."  And,  as  St.  Paul 
was  "not  a  whit  behind  the  very  chiefest  apostles ;"  and  did  even 
administer  a  severe  apostolical  and  therefore  a  super-pontifical  re- 
buke to  "/oro(  Peter,  the  Pope," — you  must,  to  make  your  succes- 
sion and  exclusive  claims  good,  show  the  evidence  of  your  suc- 
cession from  "lord  Paul"  the  Pope,  also  !  Or,  as  a  necessary  al- 
No.  22—43 


338 

ternative,  you  must  abjure  the  Bible  evidence;  and  what  is  more 
with  you,  you  must  abjure  and  deny  your  own  Canons;  or,  final- 
ly, if  you  choose,  for  once  to  be  honest  men,  renounce  your  ab- 
surd succession !  "Quid  faciam  Roma), — mentiri  nescio" — said 
a  true  prophet. 

But,  gentlemen,  even  admitting  that  the  apostles  had  successors 
as  apostles,  which,  we  have  already  proved,  they  had  not : — and 
even  admitting  it  possible  that  you  can  get  over  the  infinity  of 
historical  and  chronological  difficulties,  which  every  body  sees 
lying  in  your  way, — your  succession  has  failed,  and  is  lost  in  in- 
explicable ruin  !  This  I  took  the  liberty  of  proving  in  my  Letter 
IV.  and  you  made  no  reply :  you  durst  not  touch  the  subject : 
your  silence  was  ample  evidence  that  you  cannot  disentangle  the 
question  of  succession  from  its  labyrinth  of  confusion,  and  contra- 
dictions. There  is  not  one  sensible  man  among  you  that,  for  one 
moment,  believes  it.  I  should  insult  your  intellectual  powers  did 
I  even  insinuate  that  you,  gentlemen  priests,  do  yourselves  believe 
this  "fundamental  tenet."  And  as  for  the  "simple  faithful  priests 
who  know  no  better,  and  "the  simple  laymen,"  who  believe  infi- 
nitely more  than  they  know  any  thing  about, — why,  they  believe 
in  the  succession  and  the  descent  of  the  ^^holy  prastes"  just  as 
strongly,  and  on  just  as  good  evidence,  as  do  the  intelligent  pagans 
of  the  East,  that  "the  world  is  a  large  flat  body,  resting  on  the 
back  of  a  land  Turtle!" 

I  shall  only  add  here  that  your  line  of  succession  from  the 
apostolic  church  is  broken  ofi',  by  the  total  and  utter  loss  of  the 
bond  of  HOLINESS.  You  are  "the  man  of  sin,"  trafficking  "in 
sin,"  and  in  "the  souls  of  men,"  as  I  shall  show,  when  I  come  to 
indulgences,  and  the  Pope's  chancery  Book  containing  the  regis- 
tered price  of  every  sin,  and  the  fixed  price  of  men's  souls !  The 
succession  of  Doctrine  also  is  utterly  and  incurably  destroyed. 
This  I  showed  in  Letter  VIII.  You  have  renounced  every  grand 
peculiar  doctrine  of  the  Gospel :  even  your  recognition  of  the 
Trinity  is  merely  nominal:  the  main  object  of  your  worship  is 
"the  queen  of  heaven,"-she  who  "commands  her  son,"  namely  the 
Virgin  Mary, — she  is  in  your  spiritual  heaven,  and  in  your  tem- 
ples, what  Venus  was  in  the  East,  and  Jupiter  was  among  the 
Greeks  and  Romans  !  You  have  practically  lost  the  most  holy 
doctrine  of  Trinity,  utterly,  in  your  thirty  thousand  gods  and  god- 
desses, usually  named  saints,  and  saintesses !  And  this  being 
the  case  with  the  object  of  divine  worship,  it  is  easy  to  see  that 
not  even  one  leading  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  has  kept  its  place  in 
your  system;  all  these  have  been  quenched  in  your  heavens:  a!I 
is  dreariness  and  darkness  ;  your  skies  are  covered  with  the  veil 
of  blackness :  no  one  solitary  star  sparkles  there  !  Now  this  be- 
ing the  case,  hear  the  words  in  St.  Clement's  Epist.  1.  which  ijou 


330 

ndmit  to  be  c^cnuinc;  St.  Peter  there  declares  that  "the  true  suc- 
cession is  in  the  succession  of  doctrine."  Also  )our  Pope  Felix 
says — "Qui  participes,  &c.  those  who  would  share  the  apostle- 
ship>  must  follow  the  apostles'  doctrine.'  So  also  in  your  Decret. 
P.  1.  dist  40.  cap.  1.  "Petrus  &c.  Peter  left  the  inheritance  of  in- 
nocence to  his  heirs."  And  let  me  add  an  extract  from  the 
Greek  father  Gregory  Nazianzen: — "7b  men  gar.  &lc.  He  that 
buildeth  the  same  doctrine  is  of  the  same  chair :  but  he  who  is  an 
enemy  to  the  doctrine,  is  an  enemy  to  the  chair."  See  his  21 
Orat.  ad  Athanas.  p.  390  :  Paris  edit,  of  1778.  Therefore  your 
succession  is  broken  olf  utterly  and  forever  ! 

This  is   not  all  yet :  we  shall  pay  our  respect  to   some  of  the 
.prominent  Popes  through  whom  you  claim  your  "holy  and  unbro- 
ken line  of  succession."     A  simple  detail  from  history  will  show 
what  kind  of  a  thing  this  "holy  and  unbroken  line  of  Roman  suc- 
cession" is. 

The  popedom  of  Peter  and  that  of  Joan,  the  female  pope,  rest 
on  equal  evidence.  Peter's  papacy  was  not  mentioned  for  sever- 
al centuries  after  his  death :  Joan's  was  not  registered  for  200 
years  after  her  decease.  But  even  supposing  the  fiction  true,  that 
he  was  pope  in  good  earnest,  the  Roman  writers,  and  even  the 
ancient  fathers  cannot  agree  who  were  the  immediate  successors 
of  lord  Peter,  the  fisherman!  Seven  of  the  fathers  with  Augus- 
tine, make  Linus  ihQsecoiul  bishop  of  Rome.  Tertullian  and  the 
Latins  make  Clemens  the  second.  Cossart  in  his  great  w^ork  the 
Concilia,  cannot  determine  from  any  existing  evidence,  which  of 
these  w^as  the  successor  of  lord  Peter.  He  frankly  admits  "the 
uncertainty  of  the  Pontifical  succession."  Latterly,  the  supposi- 
tion inclines  to  favour  Linus. .  But,  it  so  happens  that  "the  Apos- 
tolical Constitutions"  bear  witness  that  Linus,  your  sccofid pope, 
was  ordained  not  by  pope  Peter,  but  by  Paul.  This  fairly  upsets 
the  succession  from  lord  Peter,  by  Linus. 

Again !  Baronius,  Bcllarmine  and  others,  make  Cletus,  and  An- 
acletus  tw^o  diflerent  popes  :  Cotelcrius,  Fleury,  and  others  make 
them  the  same  man  :  Bruys  and  Cossart  declare  that  it  is  perfect- 
ly uncertain  whether  they  were  or  not  the  same  man.  Twenty 
other  Romish  writers  enter  the  lists,  to  settle  the  point.  Their 
learned  trifling  fully  establish  this  i)oint, — namely,  that  there  was 
not  a  soul  of  tliem  that  knew  any  thing  about  the  papal  succes- 
sion !  A?id  the  sum  of  the  whole  is  this, — it  is  a  truth  about  as  cer- 
tain, and  as  valuable,  as  that  of  the  true  successor  of  Robin 
Hood,  or  Jack,  the  giant  killer  I  Thus  gentlemen,  to  avail  myself 
of  a  truly  expressive  Irishism, — the  pontifical  succession  was 
fairly  cut  off,  before  it  began  ! 

But  passing  this, — and  supy)Osing  the  impossible  thing  to  have 
happened,— tiic  grand  schisms  have  utterly  cut  off  your  succcsioa 


340 

Dr.  Geddes  in  his  valuable  work,  in  four  volumes  on  the  Papacy, 
makes  twenty-fom  schisms :  your  Baronius  enumerates  twenty-six: 
Onuphrius  the  most  accurate  of  writers,  makes  thirty:  this,  says 
Edgar  in  his  Variations  of  Popery,  is  the  commonly  received  estima- 
tion. The  detailed  account  I  have  before  me  by  Geddes  and  Ed- 
gar :  and  could  I  find  room  for  it,  I  should  exhibit  a  history  of 
wars,  bloodshed,  perjury,  treason,  blasphemy,  and  the  most  hor- 
rid impieties,  reigning  triumphant  in  the  very  throne  of  the  Pope 
and  in  all  his  dominions ;  and  unparalleled  in  all  history ! !  A  few 
specimens  I  shall  glean  from  the  principal  writers. 

The  secojid  schism  was  between  Popes  Liberius  and  Felix  in 
the  fourth  century.  Felix  was  chosen  by  the  Arian  faction  to 
oppose  Liberius,  who  was  thence  banished.  But  having  signed, 
the  Arian  creed,  he  was  recalled:  then  commenced  the  bloody 
wars,  between  these  two  Arian  Popes.  "The  wars  raged  long, 
the  clergy  were  murdered,  by  the  opposing  factions,  in  the  very 
churches.^'  St.  Augustine  speaking  of  Pope  Felix  calls  him  an 
Arian  heretic, — "A  monster,  raised  to  the  Roman  hierarchy,  by 
the  mahce  of  Antichrist !  "     See  Labbeus,  ii.  p.  991. 

And  will  the  American  public  believe  me,  when  I  declare  to 
them  that  these  two  bloody  monsters  and  Arian  heretics,  were 
after  all  their  murders,  perjury,  and  heresy,  solemnly  enrolled  in 
the  ghostly  list  of  Roman  saints  !  St.  Felix  ! !  St.  Liberius  ! ! 
These  are  their  titles.  And  here  are  the  words  which  our  priests 
address  to  them  in  solemn  prayer,  on  their  festival  days, — even 
to  these  murderers,  and  deniers  of  our  Lord's  deity,  "0^  /  St.  Li- 
berius, the  light  of  the  holy  church,  lover  of  the  divine  law,  whom  God 
loved,  and  clothed  with  the  robe  of  glory, — procure  for  us,  by  thy  inter- 
ceding merits,  the  pardon  of  all  our  sins!  See  Rom.  Breviary  p. 
35.  And  Rom.  Missal,  p.  14.  The  same  worship  is  to  this  very 
day,  offered  up  to  the  bloody  and  atrocious  Felix  as  a  saint,  a  pope, 
and  a  martyr  !  And  to  this  kind  of  gods,  do  Drs.  Power,  Levins, 
and  Varela  offer  up  this  kind  of  prayers !  If  they  neglect  to  do  it 
they  know  that  they  are  perjured  men.  For  they  have  taken 
the  great  oath  to  do  it,  and  to  do  it  regularly, — on  pain  of  damna- 
tion in  their  soul,  and  their  body ! ! 

The  fourth  schism  was  between  popes  Eulalius  and  Boniface 
in  the  fifth  century.  After  many  shameful  scenes,  the  Emperor 
decided  the  matter,  and  commanded  Boniface  to  be  pope.  It  is  evi- 
dent that  at  this  time,  the  Roman  emperor  dictated  the  election. 
Our  priests,  and  "Holy  mother,"  must  therefore  admit  that  Peter's 
spiritual  lordship  had  at  this  early  period,  yielded  to  the  temporal 
power  of  the  emperor  Honorius,  and   his,  successors. 

The  seventh  schism  was  originated  by  popes  Silverius  and  Vig- 
ilus,  in  the  sixth  century.  The  first  was  elected  by  simony  and 
fraud;  and  he  was  ordained  by  fear  and  violence.    He  was  creat- 


341 

ed  pope  by  the  king  of  the  Goths.  Vigilius  his  rival  was  elected 
by  another  faction,  by  simony  aud  fraud,  equal  in  atrocity,  to 
that  of  his  antagonist.  He  received  700  pieces  of  gold,  and  the 
popedom  from  the  empress  Theodora  ;  on  condition  of  his  aiding 
her  purposes:  this  he  accepted;  and  was  raised  to  the  papacy. 
This  "holy  and  infallible  pope,"  in  order  to  get  rid  of  his  rivals, 
suborned  false  witness  to  swear  that  Silverius  was  plotting  to  be- 
tray Rome  to  the  Goths.  He  paid  200  pieces  of  gold  for  this 
testimony  of  the  perjurer.  It  succeeded,  the  rival  was  banished, 
and  shortly  after  this,  he  was  starved  to  death ;  others  say,  assas- 
sinated. See  Godeau,  iv.  204.  Platina,  08.  Now,  it  is  obvious 
that,  according  to  your  own  S»nons,  both  of  these  popes  were 
illegally  chosen.  Here  the  links  of  the  chain  were  broken.  Be- 
sides the  character  of  Vigilius  who  professed  to  transmit  the  suc- 
cession, was  an  atrocious  character.  Coveteousness,  and  the 
impious  mockery  of  the  laws  of  God  and  man,  were  among  his 
least  sins.  He  murdered  his  secretary  by  the  blow  of  a  club:  he 
scourged  his  nephew  to  death ;  and  was  accessary  to  the  murder 
of  the  pope,  his  rival,  see  Platina,  68. 

The  thirtee?ith  schism  took  place  in  the  close  of  the  ninth  centu- 
ry :  it  disgraced  the  papacy  of  Formosus,  and  Sergius.  The 
first  was  elected  contrary  to  the  Bulls  of  Popes  Nicholas  and  Ju- 
lius. But  he  was  sustained  by  the  power  of  the  King  of  the 
Goths.  Sergius,  his  rival,  was  finally  expelled,  and  died  an  exile. 
Formosus  did  not  long  enjoy  his  guilty  power  and  honours.  Six 
years  after  his  election,  he  died.  The  atrocious  Pope  Stephen 
was  his  successor.  This  "Vicar  of  God"  ordered  his  predeces- 
sor, Foimosus,  also  a  "Vicar  of  God,"  to  be  dug  out  of  his  grave; 
he  had  him  dressed  in  his  pontificals ;  and  gravely  brought  into 
court,  to  be  tried.  The  question  was  put  to  him,  "How  dared 
you,  being  bishop  of  Porto,  to  alloVv  yourself  to  be  raised  to  the 
Holy  See?"  The  dead  body  not  making  any  reply,  as  might 
naturally  be  expected,  his  silence  was  deemed  guilt ;  he  was  so- 
lemnly condemned,  his  popedom  declared  illegal  and  invalid :  his 
head  and  three  of  his  fingers  were  cut  oflf:  and  his  mangled  bo- 
dy cast  into  the  Tiber.  The  scenes  which  followed  this,  were 
outrageous  and  horrible.  The  "Holy  and  Infallible  father"  Ste- 
phen died  in  a  dungeon  by  the  rope  !  Bruys  pronounces  his  eu- 
logium, — "This  father  and  teacher  of  all  Christians,"  says  the 
popish  writer, — "was  as  ignorant,  as  he  was  wicked."  "He  was 
guilty  of  a  wicked  and  unheard  of  sacrilege,"  says  Baronius. 
Pope  John  X.  in  his  turn  helped  to  cut  off  your  succession  by  con- 
demning Pope  Stephen  and  re-establishing  the  interests  of  Pope 
Formosus.  But  all  things  are  mutable  in  "immutable  and  infalli- 
ble Rome."  Pope  Sergius  III.  pronounced  his  ban  on  the  decrees 
of  Pope  John  X.;  reverses  his  acts ;  restores  the  ordination  of 


345i 

Pope  Stephen,  and  condemns  the  ordinations  of  Pope  Pormosus. 
See  Platina  p.  127.  Now  it  is  utterly  idle  for  any  man  to  at- 
tempt to  trace  the  genuine  succession  through  all  these  confu- 
sions, and  tumults  and  wickedness.  If  these  men  were  Christian 
pastors  and  ^Hhe  pure  successors'^  of  Peter,  then  what  holy  and  ex- 
alted saints  must  Nero  and  Tamerlane  have  been ! 

Baronius,  I  am  aware,  ventures  to  make  a  somewhat  different 
inference  from  this.  After  a  suitable  degree  of  railing  at  the  Pro- 
testants, as  he  always  does  when  he  is  constrained  to  narrate 
some  of  the  infamous  acts  of  the  Popes,  by  way  of  a  Jesuit's  offset, 
and  ruse  de  guerre,  he  very  gravely  pronounces  this  succession  of 
abominable  popes  "  a  clear  defiionstration  that  the  supreme  au- 
thority of  the  Roman  see  can  never  possibly  be  destroyed.  "  For, 
if  it  could,"  says  he,  "  such  a  long  succession  of  monsters  in  vice 
and  folly  must  infallibly  have  ruined  it."  What  an  admirable  ar- 
gument this  would  have  been  in  the  lips  of  the  Roman  pagan  em- 
perors, who,  you  know,  were  also  the  supreme  poutiffs  of  the  Pa- 
gan superstition.  "  Verily,"  they  might  have  said,  "  we  have 
here  the  evidence  of  the  truth  of  our  holy  pagan  idolatry,  and  a 
demonstration  that  our  pontifical  authority  can  never  possibly  be 
destroyed.  For  if  the  pagan  religion  were  false,  and  if  my  ponti- 
fical authority  could  be  destroyed, — surely  such  a  long  succession 
of  atrocious  despots,  must,  by  their  vice  and  folly,  long  ago  have 
ruined  it !"  The  fact  is  this,  in  each  of  these  cases,  the  boasters 
had  nothing  to  lose ;  tlie  divinitij  of  Roman  Catholic  despotism  and 
pagan  despotism,  being  equally  doubtful  of  proof,  and  equally  from 
Peter !  and  from  heaven ! 

T\\Q  nineteenth  schism  happened  in  the  beginning  of  the  eleventh 
•century.  It  revealed  scenes  more  shocking  than  any  thing  hith- 
erto conceived.  As  Rome  Catholic  advanced  in  age,  she  increas- 
ed, by  a  double  compound  ratio,  in  all  possible  wickedness.  There 
were  three  popes  in  this  schism.  Benedict  was  elected  in  A.  D. 
1033.  He  was  placed  in  the  "Holy  Chair,"  by  simony,  the  u7ii- 
versal  and  every  day  sin  of  Rome ;  and  by  faction  and  tyranny. 
His  life  was  a  compound  of  all  the  pollution  of  the  Roman  pagans 
compressed  into  one  little  soul  and  body.  This  was  "  the  Holy 
Father  of  Rome,"  the  only  "judge  of  all  controversy,"  "  the  foun- 
tain of  indulgences  and  pardon  of  sin"  for  money !  Silvester  was 
set  up  as  a  rival  to  this  monster ;  and  he  expelled  Benedict.  John 
was  the  third  pope,  at  this  time.  Benedict,  without  resigning, 
sold  the  papacy  to  John  for  1500/;  and  was  quiet  as  long  as  this 
money  ministered  to  his  diabolical  lusts  and  wickedness.  Silves- 
ter, who  had  been  driven  away  by  one  faction,  again  returned 
and  seized  the  Vatican.  Benedict  having  spent  his  money,  also 
renewed  his  claims  to  that  office  which  he  had  sold  for  gold. 
These  three  ruffian  popes,  by  violence  and  bloodshed,  kept  posses- 


343 

sion  of  the  Lateral!  the  Vatican,  and  St.  Mary's.  "  A  three- 
headed  beast,"  said  your  two  writers,  Labbeiis  and  Binius,  "  rising 
from  the  gates  of  hell,  infested  the  holy  chair  in  a  w^olul  manner." 
Labb.  Il."l280.  Bin.  Lib.  7.  221.  And  Baronins,  yom'  orthodox 
Roman  historian  also  calls  them  "  the  three  heacled  beast  which 
had  issued  from  the  gates  of  hell !"  Annal.  A.  L).  1041.  Tom.  11. 
You  have  Cerberus,  then,  in  the  "  pure  and  holy  line,"  of  your 
succession  ! ! 

And  how  was  a  remedy  brought  to  this  state  of  things?  Your 
Baronius  has  faithfully  told  the  tale.  As  the  mouths  of  the  real 
Cerberus,  \\\i\\\X,^  three  heads,  were  stopped  only  by  "a  pitchy 
mouthful,"  so  a  certain  "  pious  man"  of  the  name  of  Gration, 
bethought  of  a  similar  scheme.  The  three  mouths  of  this  monster 
pope  could  be  stopped,  he  was  sure,  with  money.  Yov  money,  you 
know%  gentlemen,  is  the  only  omnipotent  god  of  )^our  "  Holy 
Mother"  and  of  all  the  priests !  This  man,  Gratian,  actually 
bought  the  pope's  chair,  with  all  the  spiritual  powers,  and  honors, 
and  appurtenances,  thereto  belonging,  be  they  less  or  more.  He 
bought  it,  with  all  its  names,  titles,  and  attributes,  of  antiquily, 
caOioliciiy,  succession,  unity,  miraculosity,  and  sanctity.  The  three 
popes  formally  made  over  "  Holy  Mother  Church"  for  gold!!" 
Benedict,  one  of  the  holy  fathers,  for  instance,  was  to  have  all 
the  revenues  arising  from  England  while  he  lived ;  and  the  other 
holy  pair  had  their  just  share!  And  the  purchaser,  by  the  merits 
of  his  gold,  was  duly  made  pope,  "Vice  God,"  and  the  "Holy 
Father"  of  the  faithful,  to  open  heaven  and  shut  it  on  whom  he 
l^leased.  This  new  and  fourth  existing  pope  assumed  the  name  of 
Gregory  VL  I  have  only  to  add  that  your  writers,  Platina  and 
Damian  tell  us  with  much  gravity  that  Benedict,  this  wicked  pope, 
who  caused  this  schism,  and  bloodshed,  and  misery,  was  subject- 
ed to  punishment  after  death.  Yes,  the  father  of  the  faithful  and 
"  God's  vice-gerent"  w^as  doomed  to  punishment!  He  appeared, 
say  they,  to  a  traveller,  with  the  graceful  countenance  of  "a  bear," 
and  a  head  decorated  with  the  "long  ears  of  an  ass  !"  he  was  or- 
namented also  with  the  long  tail  of  an  ass  !  The  traveller  had 
the  courage  to  ask  him, — having  found  out  that  it  was  his  "  Holi- 
ness," what  could  possibly  be  the  cause  of  such  a  wicked  and 
unholy  transformation  ?  "  Ah ! "  said  the  deceased  "Holy  Father," 
— "  this  is  the  due  reward  of  my  pollution  when  I  was  the  head 
of  the  Holy  Mother!"  This  pontiff,  adds  one  of  your  saints,  is 
doomed  to  be  dragged  headlong,  until  the  day  of  judgment,  through 
thorns  and  filth,  in  regions  continually  exhaling  sulphur  and  vStench, 
and  burning  with  fire.  See  Damian,  c.  3.  Platina,  142.  Spondani, 
Epit.  VI.  1094.  Edgar  82. 

I  shall  notice  only  one  instance  more :  the  ticcnty-ninlh  schism, 
usually  called  the  great   Western  schism,  began  in  1378.     On   the 


344 

death  of  Gregory  XL  the  conclave,  consisting  of  twelve  French 
cardinals,  and  four  Italians  proceeded  to  choose  a  pope.  The 
citizens  of  Rome  had  recently  received  back  the  Pope  and  his 
court,  after  70  years  absence  at  Avignon.  They  very  naturally 
supposed,  that  unless  an  overpov^ering  multitude  should  give  them 
some  salutary  hints,  backed  by  some  well-timed  club-logic,  to  re- 
gulate their  heterodoxy,  they  might  be  wicked  enough  to  choose 
a  Frenchman,  for  a  Pope:  and  he,  of  course,  they  had  reason  to 
fear,  would  retire  to  Avignon,  there  to  spend  his  riches.  Guided 
by  such  disinterested  motives,  they  placed  a.  guard  of  honor  around 
the  holy  conclave,  and  proceeded  to  give  them  the  necessary  hints 
by  30,000  armed  men; — namely,  that  if  the  holy  fathers  did  ven- 
ture to  choose  a  Frenchman  for  pope,  it  must  be  for  no  other  rea- 
son than  their  own  anxiety  to  get  to  heaven  before  their  time,  as 
Martyrs!!  The  Cardinals  are  remarkably  prudent  men;  they 
never  had  given  a  martyr  to  "  Holy  Mother"  yet ;  and  they  did 
not  choose  at  this  time  to  begin  the  prec^edent :  their  lives  were 
exceedingly  valuable ;  good  men  were  then  scarce.  They  took 
the  hint  from  the  mob:  and  took  measiires  to  get  ample  vengeance 
on  both  friends  and  foes,  and  Holy  Mother  too ! 

They  formally  choose  Urban  VI :  and  then  retiring  beyond 
the  reach  of  the  Roman  mob's  discipline,  they  as  formally  elected 
Clement  VII.  Here  your  conclave  chose  two  opposing  heads  of 
*'Holy  Mother."  Clement  set  up  his  court  at  Avignon:  Urban, 
at  Rome.  And  from  that  day  all  Europe  was  convulsed  with 
wars  and  bloodshed.  This  schism  lasted  about  50  years.  All 
Europe  was  a  great  ecclesiastical  arena,  on  which  kings  and  popes 
who  are  the  worst  of  men,  entered  the  lists  with  deadly  animosi- 
ty, against  popes  and  kings.  What  little  remains  there  w^as  of  re- 
ligion in  Europe,  was  nearly  extinguished.  The  ghostly  factions 
acted  usually  without  policy,  and  always  without  Christian  prin- 
ciple. "The  pope's  conscience,"  says  Edgar,  "evaporated  in 
ambition,  selfishness,  and  characteristic  malignity."  The  cam- 
paign was  opened  by  a  volley  of  spiritual  artillery.  The  electors 
denounced  Pope  Urban :  he  excommunicated  every  soul  of  them 
and  formally  gave  the  holy  cardinals  all  over  to  the  devil,  soul 
and  body ! !  Clement  paid  Urban  back  in  lull  tale.  It  was  a  fair 
trial  which  Pope  could  curse  his  antagonist  with  loudest  thunder 
and  deepest  curses !  Kings  and  Queens  shared  in  the  horrid  ana- 
themas. No  bishop  or  priest  escaped.  They  cursed  all  on  each 
side,  mutually :  and  each  pope  declared  that "  What  he  bound  on 
earth  was  bound  in  heaven."  Hence  each  believed,  and  declar- 
ed that  his  antagonist,  and  all  his  adhering  bishops  and  priests, 
were  cursed  and  excommunicated!  and  thence  stripped  of  office, 
and  sanctity.  And  in  as  much  as  each  of  them  was  duly  elected 
pope,  and  each  of  them  was  a  gentleman  of  equal  honor,  and 


d45 

tqually  credible,  we  are  bound  in  duty,  to  believe  each  of  them 
to  have  been  correct !  And  as  each  of  these  duly  elected  popes 
had  annulled  and  vacated  all  the  ordinations,  collations,  and  pro- 
motions of  his  rival,  of  course,  there  was  not  one  bishop,  or  one 
priest  in  all  Europe,  who  was  not  duly  deposed,  and  duly  excom- 
municated from  the  church  and  stripped  of  his  office.  They  anni- 
hilated the  hierarchy  of  Rome ;  and  it  was  regularly  and  duly 
done  !  And  I  challenge  all  the  Roman  priests  in  our  Repubhc,  to 
show  any  thing  even  plausible  against  this  historical  fact.  Let 
ihem  touch  this  if  they  have  the  courage. 

As  if  to  make  things  doubly  sure,  in  this  formal  deposition,  the 
Council  of  Pisa  deposed  and  set  aside  these  hvo  popes;  and  elected 
pope  Alexander.  This,  instead  of  heahng,  made /Aree  acting  popes! 
And  all  Europe  sustained  a  fresh  convulsion  by  the  three  fierce 
ecclesiastical  factions. 

The  Council  of  Constance,  of  atrocious  memory,  met  in  A.  D. 
1414.  By  this  time  Pope  John  had  succeeded  Pope  Alexander. 
The  Council  required  the  three  popes  to  resign  forthwith :  each 
on  oath  solemnly  yielded ;  and  swore  on  the  holy  evangehsts  to 
obey.  But  each  of  them  instantly  resumed  his  papacy :  and  thus, 
says  an  able  writer,  "  Holy  Mother  had  three  perjured  Heads :  and 
there  were  three  perjured  Vice- Gods  !^^  John  was  deposed  for  his 
infamous  crimes:  the  Council  actually  proving  and  declaring 
"the  Holy  Father"  guilty  of"  perjury,  incest,  rape,  murder,  and 
sodomy,"  See  Labbeus  16, — 178,  222,  and  Dupin,  iii.  14.  Grego- 
ry the  ?iext  pope,  abdicated,  and  renounced  the  papacy:  the  third 
one,  Benedict,  stood  out  he  retired:  into  a  strong  castle,  and  there 
deserted  by  all  his  friends,  he  consoled  himself  in  his  dotage,  by 
excommunicating  twice  in  the  day,  with  bell,  book,  and  candle,  all 
the  nations  of  Europe  who  had  deserted  his  holy  "personal 
cause ! ! "  Pope  Martin  was  raised  to  the  papacy.  And  the  infa- 
mous Council  made  itself  an  execration  to  all  generations,  by 
their  treachery  and  infernal  cruelty.  They  condemiled,  and  burn- 
ed alive,  the  famous  martyrs  Huss  and  Jerome  of  Prague,  against 
whom  they  could  bring  no  charge,  but  that  of  their  being  devoted 
Christians,  and  faithful  opposers  of  the  deadly  heresy  of  the  Ro- 
mish sect. 

We  might  go  on  to  deduce  a  list  of  upwards  of  200  popes  of  a 
character  on  all  points  similar  to  these.  But  this  we  deem  enough, 
both  to  give  the  public  an  idea  of  the  line  of  succession  boasted  of 
by  the  Roman  Catholic  sect :  and,  at  the  same  time,  to  annihilate 
their  ridiculous  claims  of  descent  from  the  Apostles !  I  shall  only 
add  that  were  I  asked  to  select  a  list  of  the  worst  of  men ;  and 
the  most  wicked  rulers  :  even  the  most  unprincipled  of  the  species, 
— such  as  atheists,  despots,  mockers  of  virtue  and  reHgion ;  the 
common  enemies  of  God  and  man ; — I  would  pass  by  the  Kings 
44 


840 

of  Egypt,  and  Syria,  and  the  despots  of  Assyria,  and  Babylon;  I 
would  leave  out  the  atrocious  Alexanders,  and  the  Csesars,  and 
the  Greek  despots,  and  the  Roman  emperors  :  I  would  even  omit 
the  JSferos,  and  the  Tamerlaiies : — and  1  would,  after  making  an 
honorable  exception  of  a  few  worthy  names, — give  "  the  Popes 
OF  Rome,"  as  furnishing  that  horrid  list !  Their  enormities,  per- 
petrated under  the  mask  of  holy  religion,  exceed,  in  fact,  the 
powers  of  description.  The  characters  of  these  men,  as  hinted 
at  in  John's  Revelations,  ■'  as  drunk  with  the  blood  of  the  saints," 
— and  as  exhibited  in  the  history  of  their  lives,  can  no  more  be 
adequately  portrayed  than  can  the  character  of  the  Prince  of 
Darkness  !  What  man — what  church,  that  respects  the  charac- 
ter and  claims  the  honor  of  being  Christian,  would  ever  claim 
SPIRITUAL  or  ECCLESIASTICAL  succESbioN  through  such  a  line  of  inhu- 
man and  despotic  tyrants!  Men!  such  as  the  arch-deceiver  would 
select  as  his  prime  ministers !  Men  !  who  have  been  the  head,  the 
heart,  and  the  ever  ready  hand  of  that  bloody  Romish  sect,  which 
has  already  murdered  fifty  millions  of  the  human  family :  and  is 
now  seeking  with  an  unsatiable  ghostly  ambition,  to  regain  its 
power,  in  order,  if  possible,  to  murder  as  many  more ! ! 
1  am  with  respect,  gentlemen,  yours  &c. 

W.  C.  Brownlee, 
Colleg.  Min.  Middle  and  North  Dutch  Churches. 
Aho  YorkyAug,  5, 1833. 


Reply  of  JDr.  M^ower  and  Jftr.  JLeving 
TO   DR.   BROWNLEE. 

»■  This  man  began  to  build,  and  was  not  able  to  finish.     Lug.  14.  30. 

Rev.  Sir: — Our  controversy  with  you,  personally,  is  terminated* 
It  would  be  folly  to  continue  it  with  a  preacher  who  can  neither 
form  nor  appreciate  argument.  Public  opinion  must  be  respected, 
— our  own  character  must  not  be  dishonored.  To  continue  po- 
lemic discussion  with  you  cannot  add  to  reputation,  for  your  sub- 
stitute for  argument  are  falsehood,  ribald  words,  gross  invective,, 
disgusting  calumny,  and  the  recommendation  of  an  obscene  tale. 
These  have  been  your  weapons  from  your  first  to  your  last  puerile 
letter. 

In  the  "  Truth  Teller"  of  July  6th  and  13th,  the  following  pro- 
position was  proposed  to  you, — "What  articles  of  faith,  found  in 
the  Scripture  in  express  terms,  must  be  believed  in  order  to  be 
saved  ?"    You  were,  at  the  same  time,  informed,  that  "  the  con- 


847 

tinuation  of  our  controversy  with  you,  perso?mlhj,  would  depend  on 
your  answer."  After  a  cautious  delay  your  answer  was  con- 
cocted,— your  articles  of  faiih  found  in  the  Scripture  in  express 
terms  were  given.  Our  hisl  letter  contained  our  remarks  on  your 
Bible  creed.  By  this  creed  you  exclude  the  Trinity  and  the  Incar- 
nation. W.'iat  is  your  answer  to  our  letter?  this;—"  Your  ultra 
zealotry  is  ambitioning  too  much  when  you  find  fault  with  my 
Scriptural  creed,— or,  indeed,  any  Christin?i  creed ! ! /"  This  is  your 
iheological  answer  !  this  is  the  answer  of  the  Erudite  in  the  "  He- 
brew and  Greek  of  the  Holy  Ghost !"  This  is  the  answer  of  the 
Preacher  in  the  Middle  Dutch  Church  I  He  says  w^e  "ambition 
too  much  when  we  find  fault  with  his  Scriptural  creed."  But  his 
Scriptural  creed  excludes  the  Trinity  and  the  Incarnation  and  to 
'\fi7id  fault  with  the  exclusioji  of  the  Trinity  and  Incarnation  is, 
from  his  own  avowal,  "  ambitioning  too  much !  "  Hence,  to  secure 
the  favour  and  approval  of  Preacher  Brownlee,  we  7nust  ?iot  "find 
fault"  with  the  Scriptural  creed  which  excludes  the  Trinity  and 
Incarnation.  We  ask  his  "Christian  public,"  is  not  this  an  ample 
and  practical  illustration  of  his  Protestant  rule  of  faith. 

But,  further,  he  writes, — "you  ambition  too  much  when  you 
^7i(//aw/Mvith  ANY  Christian  creed!"  Therefore,  in  the  opinion 
of  Preacher  Brownlee,  no  Christian  creed  is  to  be  condemed. 
This  is  liberaHty  !  But  why  does  the  Preacher  "  find  fault"  with 
the  Catholic  creed?  Is  this  consistency?  Any  christian  creed 
MAY  RE  adopted; — This  is  the  final,  logical,  and  orthodox  conclu- 
sion from  the  twelve  polemical  letters  of  Preacher  Brownlee  on 
his  Protestant  rule  of  faith.  This  is  the  triumph  achieved  by 
Preacher  Brownlee  for  himself,  the  Members  of  the  Middle 
Dutch  Church,  and  ihc  *' virtuous  ladies.^'  As  the  Bard  suno-  of 
the  burial  of  Sir  John  Moore, 

"  Wc  learc  him  alone  with  his  glory." 

John  Power, 
August  8th,  1833.  Thos.  C.  Levins, 


TO  DRS.  POWER,  VARELA  AND   LEVINS. 

LETTER    THE    LAST. 

**  Therefore  I  will  put  my  hook  in  thy  nose  and  my  bridle  i.v 
THY  LIPS,  and  I  will  turn  thee  back  by  the  way,  by  which  thou 
earnest."— IsAi.  37.  29. 

Gentlemen : — Indulge  me  in  a  few  words  on  parting,  seeing 
that    nothing    can  stop  your  desperate  retreat    from  "Holy 


348 

Mother*s"  defence. — "  Your  controversy  with  me/*  you  tell  the 
public,  "  is  personally  ai  an  end."  Beware  of  rash  words,  gentle- 
men. Controversy  with  me  personally  you  will  not  end.  It  is  true, 
this  theological  discussion  was  not  personal  on  my  part :  I  trust  I 
chose  a  higher  aim :  no  priest  can  be  an  object  of  attack  person- 
ally, when  "  Holy  Mother"  is  full  in  view.  The  Protestant  aims 
his  "  Jerusalem  blade,"  at  the  Head  of  all  evil,  on  earth,  viz :  error 
embodied,  and  personified  in  Antichrist.  But  for  you, — you  have 
made  it  your  avocation  to  he  personal :  you  cannot  be  otherwise 
than  persojial:  Jesuitism  would  die  of  spleen  if  it  vented  not  its 
malignant  personalities.  Romish  logic  has  never  yet  distinguish- 
ed between  argument  and  personal  abuse.  I  do  not  say  that  this 
is  your  personal  infirmity. — No.  It  is  of  the  essential  nature  of 
the  whole  system.  Jesuitism  is  by  its  very  nature,  at  war  with  all 
mankind,  and  the  good  of  all  civilized  society :  issuing  as  it  did, 
from  the  bottomless  pit,  if  its  natural  malignity  and  hatred  of  all 
that  is  good  were  changed,  or  modified,  it  would  of  necessity  die. 
*^  No  faith  with  heretics,^^  is  the  watchword  of  its  bloodhounds. 
The  clanking  of  chains,  and  the  moans  of  its  tortured  victims  in 
the  Inquisition,  are  its  favorite  music :  and  the  fires  of  the  auto 
DA  FE,  light  up  its  dreary  and  horrid  pathway !  The  bowels  of 
Jesuitism  year7i  over  us,  according  to  its  natural  parental  feelings  ! 
And  the  fires  of  Smithfield,  and  the  massacres  of  Paris  and  of 
Ireland,  would  be  renewed,  tomortow,  in  our  Park,  had  this  bloody 
sect  the  political  ascendency  and  power !  How  could  you  then, 
Rev.  Sirs,  utter  such  an  untruth — and  say  that  your  controversy 
personally  with  me,  zvas  at  an  end?  But  so  it  is — 
"  A  man  may  smile,  and  smile,  and  be  a  villain." 

You  have,  again  repeated  your  blundering  and  ungrammatical 
card,  demanding, — "  What  articles  of  faith  found  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, in  express  terms,  must  be  believed  in  order  to  be  saved?" 
That  is,  what  articles  are  to  be  believed  to  be  saved  ?  For  such 
is  the  construction  of  the  sentence ;  there  is  no  human  person  spo- 
ken of:  the  subject,  or  person  of  the  verb,  "  must  be  believed,"  is 
the  subject  which  is  "  to  he  saved."  You  have  in  all  your  letters, 
given  the  American  public  sufficient  specimens,  in  all  conscience, 
of  the  deficiencies  of  a  Romish  theological  education:  you  might 
have  spared  the  public  taste  this  last  specimen  of  your  literary 
powers.  But  this  little  Card  is  the  youngest  and  last  of  the  fami- 
ly ;  and  of  course  it  is  a  great  pet  with  you !  You  have  inflicted 
it  upon  us  three  times  !  It  is  natural : — It  is  human  nature !  In  a 
family,  the  youngest,  little,  rickety  child  is  always  the  object  of  an 
absorbing  parental  fondness, — especially  when  its  parents  are 
waxing  old,  and  are  themselves  very  feeble-minded  ! 

You  have  given  us  another  rare  specimen  of  Romish  logic  in 


849 

your  remarks  touching  my  Scripture  creed.  You  facetiously  af- 
fect to  infer  that  we  reject  the  Trhnly  andlhc  Incarnation  ;  because 
we  do  not  mention  them  in  express  words.  On  your  principles  a 
man  does  not  believe  what  he  docs  not  find  room  to  express  in 
certain  phrases!  Hence,  on  the  principles  of  your  profound  logic, 
our  Lord,  who  does  not,  in  express  terms,  mention  either  the  Trini- 
ty or  the  Incarnation^  in  the  Lord's  prayer,  did  not  himself  believe 
in  them? — This,  however,  is  not  my  main  reply.  Had  your  Ro- 
mish education  embraced  in  it,  the  first  elements  of  a  sound  chris- 
tian theology,  and  tlie  analytic  method  of  evolving  truth — you 
must  have  seen — you  could  not  but  have  seen,  that  in  the  very 
first  text  which  I  have  quoted,  namely,  "  Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved," — the  true  Christian  necessarily 
believes,  and  confesses  his  faith  in  the  7ri?iitt/,  and  in  the  Incarna- 
tion. He  cannot  truly  believe  in  Christ,  unless  he  believes  in  the 
Father,  who  sent  his  Son  to  redeem  us :  and  in  Jesus  Christ  the 
incarnate  God,  who  in  human  nature,  sufl^ered,  and  died  for  us  :  and 
in  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  "  creates  us  anew  in  Christ,"  and  gives  us 
that  very  faith,  by  which  we  receive  Christ. 

I  shall  not  therefore  follow  you  any  farther,  in  your  disjointed, 
and  bald  declamation  about  "  Creeds  of  Christian  faith"  and  "  ar- 
ticles of  belief"  "Physician,  (I  say,)  heal  thyself!"  Those  men 
who  have  been  fairly  coivvicted  of  Deism,  on  evidence  which 
would  satisfy  any  jury  of  twelve  honest  men ;  and  who  in  fact, 
have  openly  declared  in  the  face  of  the  pubHc,  that  they,  and  their 
sect  do  absolutely  reject  God's  word,  as  "  utterly  defective,''  and 
"  utterly  insufficient  to  be  the  Rule  of  Faith," — are  not  to  be  listen- 
ed to,  in  their  cantings  about  Christian  creeds,  and  articles  of 
faith.  It  is  sheer  hypocrisy.  "  And  of  all  the  cantings  of  this 
canting  world,  the  cant  of  hypocrisy  is  the  worst."  And  of  all 
hypocrites,  the  most  insufferable  are  these  two  classes, — namely, — 
the  drunkard,  on  an  ale  house  bench, — and  the  infidel  priest,  demure- 
ly discussing  solemn  articles  of  our  holy  religion  ! ! 

The  highly  complimentary  truth  which  closes  your  last  letter, 
would  have  been  duly  appreciated  by  me,  had  it  not  been  wrung 
from  you  by  constraint.  Here  the  priests  of  Rome  have  been,  in 
one  respect,  like  the  fair  sex; — pardon  me,  Ladies,  for  placing  you, 
even  in  supposition,  in  the  company  of  those  with  whom,  we  are 
all  aware,  no  virtuous  lady  can  associate  for  one  moment.  But 
in  the  fair  one's  letter,  one  can  never  arrive  at  her  real  feeling  and 
meaning,  until  she  comes  to  the  Postscript.  There,  every  thing  is 
wrapt  up  in  the  last  sentence.  Even  so,  after  all  the  priests,  vitu- 
peration, and  scandal,  and  personalities,  the  truth  is  evolved  in 
their  last  sentence,— namely, — "We  leave  him  alone,"  that  is  their 
opponent—"  with  his  glory!"  "  There  are  few  polemics  who  can 
boast  of  receiving  such  a  compliment  as  this  from  their  antagonist ; 


350 

that  is  too  say,  for  it  is  to  delicious  not  to  be  thoroughly  paraphras- 
ed,— "We  abandon  to  him  the  whole  cause,  in  despair!  "  JVe 
leave  him  alone  with  his  glory  /"  Our  Roman  Catholic  Rule  is  utterly 
untenable!  We  abandon  the  defence!  The  heretic's  /e/i  argu- 
ments we  cannot, — and  will  not  touch  !  They  have  crushed  our 
Rule !  And  the  one  score  and  five  arguments  against  Holy  Mother's 
*^  idolatry, ^^  and  her  *'  superstition,'^  and  her  '^fanaticism,''  have  anni- 
hilated our  hopes.  They  are  tremendous,— because  we  feel  the 
overpowering  force  of  our  own  errors  and  impostures!  Conscious 
innocence  can  withstand  any  thing!  But  a  guilty  consciousness 
makes  one  feel  one's  self  annihilated  by  the  smallest  volley  !  Holy 
Mother's  "  antiquity,"  we  can  defend  no  more,  when  we  have  a 
conviction  in  our  consciences,  that  all  our  leading  tenets  and  rites 
were  recently  invented  by  our  priesthood !  And  the  heretic  in 
his  terrible  Letter  viii.  has  let  the  fatal  secret  out!  Her  "  Catholi- 
city''' is  gone  too  !  We  can  no  more  say  a  word  in  defence  of  it. 
The  plague  rest  on  this  cunning  "  American  pubHc"  of  his  !  We 
really  had  thought  that  we  could  have  made  his  "religious  pubHc'* 
believe  that  particular  meant  general,  that  our  church  was  all  the 
universe !  Our  succession  is  ruined  !  These  schisms,  and  these  dia- 
bolical popes,  set  forth  in  all  their  horrid  garnishment,  have  killed 
us  outright! 

Alas  !  for  the  stately  bark  of  St.  Peter !  It  has  been  shipwreck- 
ed in  Europe.  And  our  last  hopes  were  bringing  these  States 
under  our  grasp,  and  the  holy  despotism, — the  salutary  despotism 
of  Rome,  and  the  Inquisition.  We  were  working  our  way  secret- 
ly and  slily.  We  had  got  many  Protestants, — silly  fools  we  ad- 
mit,— WHO  achmlly  sent  their  daughters  into  our  7iu7ineries,  and  their 
sons  to  our  pure  and  holy  seminaries  of  Jesuitism,  to  be  educated!  ! 
And  carefully  and  successfully  did  we  train  them :  and  return 
them  into  the  bosom  of  their  vile  heretical  parent;  deeply  imbued 
with  Romanism ;  and  faithful  to  the  Catholic  Jesuits'  cause ! ! 
But,  alas !  the  cunning  American  public  is  now  waked  up  !  And 
our  hopes  are  blasted!  '  The  curse  of  St.  Patrick  on  these  dis- 
cussions! It  is  true,  we  knew  the  wholesome  rule  of  our  holy 
Jesuit  Busasus.  •'  Avoid,  if  you  can,  all  controversy  on  the  articles  of 
faith,  with  heretics  !  "  We  did  act  on  this  all  along  !  But  these 
obstinate  heretics  would  not  be  way-laid :  they  plunged  right  on- 
ward ;  and  they  got  in  spite  of  us,  into  our  citadel, — into  the  very 
chambers  of  our  imagery!  The  veil  so  carefully  thrown  over 
all  our  weak  parts,  has  been  unceremoniously  stript  off.  And  St. 
Patrick  only  knows  what  is  to  be  the  end  of  these  things  !  Our 
blessings  on  this  officious  meddling  "American  public"  of  his  ! — 
We  had  once  thought  that  we  could  easily  train,  by  our  Jesuit 
legions,  swarming  over  all  the  land,  the  people  of  this  American 
Republic  !    Our  doctrines,  and  our  rites,  and  church  goverr*- 


851 

ment,  sustained  by  a /orei^g-w  power,  cRunot  thrive, — they  cattnot 
even /ire  in  a  Republic  !  But  when  we  receive  the  power  we 
shall  soon  teacii  these  stifl'-hendcd  Republicans  another  lesson. 
And  Spain  and  Austria  and  Italy  shall  be  the  fair  model  of  a  new 
and  renovated  government !  But  the  maledictions  of  St.  Peter 
and  St.  Paul  on  these  discussions!  The  artful  secret  has  been 
divulged,  before  we  were  ripe  !  Our  execrations  on  this  reading 
and  thinking  generation  !  Ten  thousand  plagues  on  this  light 
and  knowledge,  which  paralyzes  us ;  and  strikes  us  blind,  as  do 
the  sun's  bright  beams  the  owl  of  the  forest."  Such  are  the  ad- 
missions wrapt  up  honestly  in  the  last  sentence  of  your  letter: 
and  we  thank  you  for  the  concessions:  we  shall  give  wings  to 
them. 

But,  finally,  permit  me  to  grace  your  retreat  With  an  appro- 
priate historical  exposition  of  your  favourite  text  at  the  head  of 
my  letters.  It  was  not  for  nothing  that  you  quoted  it  so  often, 
and  so  apropos.  "Coming  events  cast  their  shadows  before ! " 
You  had  a  presentinent  of  this  ill-fated  retreat  :  and  it  was  im- 
possible that  you  could  forget  the  Retreat  of  the  great  personages, 
alluded  to  in  the  premonitory  passage  of  the  prophet. 

These  were  Senacherib,  the  despot  of  Assyria ;  with  his  two 
mischief-making  sons,  Adramelech  and  Sharezer;  who  closed 
the  chapter  of  their  father's  accidents,  in  a  bloody  tragedy.  These 
with  their  servant,  rabshakeh,  came  up  to  invade  the  fair  land  of 
Judah,  and  destroy  Mount  Zion.  The  King  of  Assyria  was  but 
another  name  for  a  cruel  foreign  despotism,  exercised  over  the 
souls  and  bodies  of  men.  You  know  who  is  the  anti-type  of  this 
unenviable  character.  The  two  sons  of  that  prince,  children  of 
Behal,  may  represent  the  two  men  who  are  the  right  and  left 
hands  of  the  symbol  o(  foreign  despotism, —  men,  who,  like  these 
sons,  would  kill  their  sovereign !  And  Rabshakeh  was  a  vain, 
blustering,  swaggering,  wine-bibber ;  much  given  to  gasconade ; 
a  captain  of  the  Assyrian  host ;  fighting  against  Zion,  and  against 
the  Most  High  ;  much  given  to  speak  and  write  blasphemy  in  the 
ears,  and  before  the  eyes,  of  the  people:  much  given  to  taunt 
"the  Hebrew  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  and  prefer  the  Babylonion  tra- 
ditions and  oracles  of  the  heathens,  to  the  pure  and  holy  word  of 
God.  Moreover,  for  some  misdemeanor  or  other,  by  the  law  of 
his  despotic  prince,  he  was  doomed  never  to  marry,  nor  to  be  re- 
ceived into  the  company  of  "virtuous  ladies."  Hence  he  exer- 
cised himself  much  in  the  language  of  Ashdod,  in  speaking  evil  of 
all  "the  virtuous  of  the  sex."     For  he  did, — 

"Like  Moses  praise  and  bless, 
The  Canaan  which  he  never  could  possess." 

But  haste  we  to  the  sequel — Never  w^as  defeat  more  public 
and  more  complete,  than  that  of  our  Assyrians !    IN  ever  was  a 


35^ 

RETREAT  of  any  vain  glorious  foemen  covered  with  more  infamy 
than  was  that  of  the  despot,  his  two  sons,  and  Rabshakeh!  Not 
one  strong  hold  of  Israel  could  they  approach  with  a  hand  of 
harm!  Not  one  arrow  took  effect  in  any  one  fortress  of  Zion. 
They  missed  their  aim :  they  lost  their  cause :  they  lost  their 
honor :  they  lost  their  whole  ho.st !  The  Mighty  God  of  Zion 
breathed  on  them  in  the  burning  wrath  of  his  Samiel, — and  lo!  they 
were  all  dead  men !  The  few  struggling  partizans,  made  their 
Retreat,  in  deathlike  silence,  and  with  unutterable  confusion. 
God  fights  against  all  antichristian  powers! 

Then,  mark  the  end  of  the  despot.  The  hands  of  those  whom 
he  trained  up  to  wickedness,  did  Overthrow  him  1  As  for  Rabsha- 
keh;— as  you  are  admirers  of  tradition,  let  us  seek  his  fate  in  the 
Misnah,  and  the  Gemara  of  the  Talmud.  It  is  very  obscure;  but 
the  most  feasible  may  be  this  : — being  a  great  patron  of  human 
ignorance,  lie  kept  the  people  as  blind  and  ignorant  as  possible : 
he  hated  reading  and  writing :  it  only  made  people  averse  from 
the  patient  bearing  of  the  yoke  of  priestcraft  and  despotism  !  He 
took  care  to  burn  every  copy  of  the  Book  of  the  Law,  that  he 
could  find  in  the  people's  houses.  But  even  the  longest  chain  has 
an  end.  The  tide  of  popular  fury  turned  on  him;  and  banished 
him  into  some  eremite's  cell,  to  lead  a  life  of  penance  and  unalloy- 
ed misery.  And  he  died  as  he  had  lived,  the  enemy  of  God,  the 
curse  of  civil  society,  and  the  execration  of  all  enlightened  peo- 
ple !  His  bleached  bones  were  found  by  some  humane  shepherd, 
who  placed  them  under  a  large  rock,  upon  which  in  the  process  of 
time,  some  one  wrote  an  epitaph.  This  epitaph  probably  found 
its  way  into  the  Gemara;  and  some  amateurs  having  translated 
it, — the  famous  Robert  Burns  added  the  charms  of  a  poetic  version 
to  it,  in  the  following  manner: — 

"  Beneath  these  rugged  stones 
Lie  old  Rabshakeh's  bones  ; 

O  death  \  it's  my  opinion, 

You  ne'er  took  such 

A  blatherin'  bitch, 
Into  your  dark  dominion  ! !" 

I  am,  Gentlemen,  yours,  &c.  W.  C.  Brownlee. 

Notice. — The  priests  having  finally  retreated  and  having  ept- 
TiRELY  GIVEN  UP  THEIR  CAUSE,  in  this  discussioH  it  would  be  as  dis- 
creditable to  address  any  more  Letters  to  them,  as  it  would  be  in 
a  soldier,  who  keeps  in  his  ranks,  to  consent,  or  correspond  with 
COWARDS  and  deserters.  I  shall  claim  the  continued  and  kind  in- 
dulgence of  the  Christian  community  while  I  go  on  in  the  regu- 
lar DISCUSSION,  IN  Letters  addressed  to  the  Members  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  ; — retaining  my  right,  however,  to  return 
to  the  charge,  should  the  Priests  come  out  with  "  more  last  words." 

New  York,  August  13,  1833.  W.  C.  B. 

the  end. 


I' 


Date  Due 

'  f.'^^i^T*!  T 

'     - 

f) 

PRINTED 

IN  U.  S.   A. 

